Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When an AIRCRAFT goes into hover mode it loses Airborne Predator, Hard to Hit and Manoeuvrable abilities. But it still keeps the AIRCRAFT keyword. Any non-FLY unit cannot end any kind of move (which includes charges, pile ins, consolidates and heroic interventions) within engagement range of AIRCRAFT. Are hovering AIRCRAFT really unchargeable by non-FLY units, or did i miss something ?

Hover: In your Command phase, this model can hover. If it does so, then until the start of your next Command phase, its Move characteristic becomes 15" and it loses the Airborne Predator, Hard to Hit and Manoeuvrable abilities.

AIRCRAFT ENGAGEMENT RANGE
Although AIRCRAFT models have an Engagement Range like any other model, the following rules and exceptions apply to it – this will account for the fact that typically AIRCRAFT models are soaring overhead and not skimming along the ground.

Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved across AIRCRAFT models (and their bases) as if they were not there, and they can be moved within an enemy AIRCRAFT model’s Engagement Range, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within Engagement Range of any enemy AIRCRAFT models.

The only exception are units that can FLY, which can end a charge move within Engagement Range of an enemy AIRCRAFT model.

In an effort to consolidate the Aircraft Engagement Range rules in one place GW has successfully made the Airborne rule pointless and prevented the Hover rule from allowing non-Flying models to charge Aircraft.

You are correct that a hovering AIRCRAFT can not be selected as the target of a charge unless the charging unit can FLY.

So i, and everyone i know, have been playing it wrong since the beginning

You have been playing RAI instead of RAW.

 alextroy wrote:
You have been playing RAI instead of RAW.

Maybe, maybe not. This rule was there from the beginning of 9th i believe, and it hasnt been changed until now, so its probably the right way to play. I dont think this hasnt been reported to GW, yet.

 alextroy wrote:
You have been playing RAI instead of RAW.

I don't think that this is a RAI vs RAW issue. I am pretty sure this is exactly what was intended. The point of an aircraft is that it is in the air were we earthbound peasants can not reach. Even when hovering it isn't going to be two feet off the ground it will likely be 20-30 feet or more.

 KingGarland wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
You have been playing RAI instead of RAW.

I don't think that this is a RAI vs RAW issue. I am pretty sure this is exactly what was intended. The point of an aircraft is that it is in the air were we earthbound peasants can not reach. Even when hovering it isn't going to be two feet off the ground it will likely be 20-30 feet or more.

How tall is a GUO or a Knight?

 KingGarland wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
You have been playing RAI instead of RAW.

I don't think that this is a RAI vs RAW issue. I am pretty sure this is exactly what was intended. The point of an aircraft is that it is in the air were we earthbound peasants can not reach. Even when hovering it isn't going to be two feet off the ground it will likely be 20-30 feet or more.

You don’t give a unit a rule that prevents non-Flying units from engaging it in melee (Airborne), then give it a rule that negates that rule (Hover) without expecting non-Flying units being able to attack it.

However, to make this work, they should eliminate Airborne as a redundant rule and change Hover to something like:

Hover Jet: In your Command phase, this model can hover. If it does, then until the start of your next Command phase, its Move characteristic becomes 20" and it loses the Hard to Hit and Supersonic abilities and the Aircraft keyword.

 alextroy wrote:
You don’t give a unit a rule that prevents non-Flying units from engaging it in melee (Airborne), then give it a rule that negates that rule (Hover) without expecting non-Flying units being able to attack it.

However, to make this work, they should eliminate Airborne as a redundant rule and change Hover to something like:

Hover Jet: In your Command phase, this model can hover. If it does, then until the start of your next Command phase, its Move characteristic becomes 20" and it loses the Hard to Hit and Supersonic abilities and the Aircraft keyword.

I am certain that is exactly why they wrote it into the Aircraft keyword specifically to prevent non-flying units from charging into Aircraft, hovering or not. As it says in the BRB "Although AIRCRAFT models have an Engagement Range like any other model, the following rules and exceptions apply to it – this will account for the fact that typically AIRCRAFT models are soaring overhead and not skimming along the ground.". Even when hovering it is still soaring overhead so there is no way a group of grots is charging a Stormtalon in the air.

Non-flying units can still attack it, what they can not do is charge.

Airborne is in no way a redundant rule. As the rule goes:

Airborne: You cannot declare a charge with this model, and it can only be chosen as a target of a charge if the unit making the charge can FLY. You can only fight with this model if it is within Engagement Range of any enemy units that can FLY, and this model can only make melee attacks against units that can FLY. Enemy units can only make melee attacks against this model if they can FLY.

If you got rid of Airborne any aircraft unit, while zipping around the board high in the sky, would be able to declare a charge, fight models within engagement range that do not have the Fly keyword and make melee attacks against them and be attacked by non-flying units.

You could move all of this into the BRB under the aircraft section but then if you make it so that they lose the keyword when hovering you then lose all of this plus all of the other rules under that section including all the engagement range rules and heroic intervention, piles in and consolidate rules as well as losing any Stratagems tied into the keyword.

I agree that the way these rules interact needs cleaning up, but I don't think that this is it.

Personally, I would change Hover jet to let the model keep the airborne trait.

The weird part is that any hovering AIRCRAFT can charge non-FLY units. But not the other way around.

I also noticed that units in engagement range of an AIRCRAFT, no matter whether if its hovering or not, can still make a normal move, or advance, no need to fallback, or remain stationary. This makes sense when the AIRCRAFT is soaring overhead and not skimming along the ground, but not when its attacking another non-FLY unit in melee on the ground.

 p5freak wrote:
The weird part is that any hovering AIRCRAFT can charge non-FLY units. But not the other way around.

I also noticed that units in engagement range of an AIRCRAFT, no matter whether if its hovering or not, can still make a normal move, or advance, no need to fallback, or remain stationary. This makes sense when the AIRCRAFT is soaring overhead and not skimming along the ground, but not when its attacking another non-FLY unit in melee on the ground.

Found your issue here...

"This makes sense when the AIRCRAFT is soaring overhead and not skimming along the ground..."

The game is a rule set, not a simulation.

It makes perfect sense in the context of the rules.

Unit A can not charge Unit B, but Unit B can charge Unit A. Perfectly well written and understandable. It makes sense to me.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Unit A can not charge Unit B, but Unit B can charge Unit A. Perfectly well written and understandable. It makes sense to me.

Unit A is on the ground, hovering unit B in the air can charge it. Hovering unit B must be on the ground to charge unit A. However, unit A on the ground cannot charge hovering unit B, because of reasons. Hovering unit B charged unit A, and is now on the ground, making melee attacks. Now unit C on the ground still cant charge hovering unit B on the ground. Where does this make sense ?

 p5freak wrote:
Unit A is on the ground, hovering unit B in the air can charge it.

"hovering unit B"? do you mean A unit that used the "Hover Jet" (Or similar) rule?

Hovering unit B must be on the ground to charge unit A.

"must be on the ground" What does this mean? I do not see anything in the rules about being "on the ground" to make a charge.

However, unit A on the ground cannot charge hovering unit B, because the rules say it can not do so of reasons.

Fixed that for you with the underlined. (But I am still not sure what rules you are using when you say "unit A on the ground...")

Hovering unit B charged unit A, and is now on the ground, making melee attacks. Now unit C on the ground still cant charge hovering unit B on the ground. Where does this make sense ?

Again, what does "is now on the ground" mean? I cant find that in the rules anywhere.

Bottom line is that the rules say Unit A can not charge Unit B, but Unit B can charge Unit A.

Perfectly well written and understandable. How does that not make sense?

An AIRCRAFT is usually "soaring overhead" not "skimming along the ground", thats the reason non-FLY units cannot charge it. In order to make melee attacks it must be skimming along the ground, it cant make melee attacks soaring overhead. Now, when hovering, that AIRCRAFT unit can charge and make melee attacks against one or more non-FLY unit(s), because its now skimming along the ground. Why does it make sense that other non-FLY units cant charge that hovering AIRCRAFT ?

Ground is a term used in the rules. Replace ground with battlefield if that makes you feel better.

AIRCRAFT ENGAGEMENT RANGE
Although AIRCRAFT models have an Engagement Range like any other model, the following rules and exceptions apply to it – this will account for the fact that typically AIRCRAFT models are soaring overhead and not skimming along the ground.

 p5freak wrote:
An AIRCRAFT is usually "soaring overhead" not "skimming along the ground", thats the reason non-FLY units cannot charge it.

The terms "soaring overhead" and "skimming along the ground" are just fluff. It has nothing to do with the rules of the game.

In order to make melee attacks it must be skimming along the ground, it cant make melee attacks soaring overhead.

Again, fluff, not rules.

Now, when hovering, that AIRCRAFT unit can charge and make melee attacks against one or more non-FLY unit(s), because its now skimming along the ground.

(Emphasis mine)

The red is just fluff and has no rules application, you need to ignore it because it is not rules.

Why does it make sense that other non-FLY units cant charge that hovering AIRCRAFT ?

Because that is exactly what the rules say, so it makes sense.

Ground is a term used in the rules. Replace ground with battlefield if that makes you feel better.

False, "Ground" is a term used in the fluff, not in the rules. "skimming along the" is also just fluff.

Anything written in the rules is rules, or at least is used to explain how a rule is played or meant. Unless you provide a rule citation what fluff is, and what isn't.

 p5freak wrote:
Anything written in the rules is rules,

Well that is just plain false. Unless you think "Guns thunder and shrapnel falls from the sky" on Page 216 is somehow a rule...
Not everything written in the rules is rules as I have shown.

or at least is used to explain how a rule is played or meant. Unless you provide a rule citation what fluff is, and what isn't.

If it doesn't mean anything in the terms of the rules it is fluff, like the sentence I posted above. There is no definition is the rules of fluff, so that is why it is fluff.

You have to apply logic to be able to parse the rules, otherwise they will not make sense to you.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Anything written in the rules is rules,

Well that is just plain false. Unless you think "Guns thunder and shrapnel falls from the sky" on Page 216 is somehow a rule...
Not everything written in the rules is rules as I have shown.

or at least is used to explain how a rule is played or meant. Unless you provide a rule citation what fluff is, and what isn't.

If it doesn't mean anything in the terms of the rules it is fluff, like the sentence I posted above. There is no definition is the rules of fluff, so that is why it is fluff.

You have to apply logic to be able to parse the rules, otherwise they will not make sense to you.

That is your personal interpretation, not backed up by any rules. I disagree with you.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Anything written in the rules is rules,

Well that is just plain false. Unless you think "Guns thunder and shrapnel falls from the sky" on Page 216 is somehow a rule...
Not everything written in the rules is rules as I have shown.

or at least is used to explain how a rule is played or meant. Unless you provide a rule citation what fluff is, and what isn't.

If it doesn't mean anything in the terms of the rules it is fluff, like the sentence I posted above. There is no definition is the rules of fluff, so that is why it is fluff.

You have to apply logic to be able to parse the rules, otherwise they will not make sense to you.

That is your personal interpretation, not backed up by any rules. I disagree with you.

It is not my personal interpretation. Not everything written in the rules is rules.

I have proven this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have proven this.

No, you haven't. You cant prove it, because there is no rule that separates fluff from rules. Anything written in the rules is by definition rules.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have proven this.

No, you haven't. You cant prove it, because there is no rule that separates fluff from rules. Anything written in the rules is by definition rules.

I literally did prove that "Not everything written in the rules is rules."

So what are you on about?


P.S. above I said "Guns thunder and shrapnel falls from the sky" it is on Page 216.

According to you this is a rule. sho how would one apply this?


Bottom line is that you need to use logic to parse the rules. Something you clearly are not interested in doing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.S. above I said "Guns thunder and shrapnel falls from the sky" it is on Page 216.

According to you this is a rule. sho how would one apply this?

Again you ignore parts of what i said to fit your agenda, stop it.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.S. above I said "Guns thunder and shrapnel falls from the sky" it is on Page 216.

According to you this is a rule. sho how would one apply this?

Again you ignore parts of what i said to fit your agenda, stop it.

I do not have an agenda. I am not sure why you think i do.

I didn't ignore anything, some of your statements were not applicable to the discussion.

Bottom line is the terms "soaring overhead" and "skimming along the ground" have nothing to do with the rules of the game. If you think otherwise, we are going to need a citation.

Done here.