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.

I am considering adding this rule to our Urban Combat campaign to address the problems caused by upper floors of ruins being un-assaultable.

"Drag Down: When selecting a unit to charge, you may declare that your unit is attempting to scale the walls and drag down enemies. During this charge and fight phase, models in this unit are considered to be within 1" of any enemies who are up to 5" directly above them in any ruin. In addition, when making Consolidation moves during this Fight phase, rather than moving 3" as normal, models in this unit may instead choose to move up to 5" directly up, as long as that takes them closer to models in the unit they attacked in the Fight phase.

Note that this does not allow non-infantry models without FLY to end their move on the upper levels of a ruin.

A unit that declared they will attempt to Drag Down does not count as having Charged during the ensuing fight phase, and is not selected to fight before other units."

This rule is designed to allow close combat units to attack models positioned on the upper levels of ruins, either scaling up the walls or reaching up to pull enemies out of windows or down from ledges. The special consolidate rule will allow a unit who is winning the assault to consolidate onto the upper level, usually resulting in them still being within 1" of enemy models during their turn. However, Drag Down only lasts for the remainder of the player turn, so if you had for example a dreadnought attacking models on an upper level, he would not be locking them in combat during their turn and they would be able to shoot at him or run away freely.

Or just make melee range be 4" vertically and 1" horizontally.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Or just make melee range be 4" vertically and 1" horizontally.

That would mostly work well as a simplified version of the_scotsman's suggestion. The only weird thing that comes to mind is that you potentially wouldn't be able to consolidate into the enemy unit standing right next to the one you were just fighting from below if the next floor is more than 3" above you. But either BCB or the_Scotsman's suggestions seem very reasonable to me.

Perhaps it would also be useful to just add a line to the unit coherency rules stating that models ignore the first X" of vertical distance when measuring coherency? Just to make it less awkward to have some units succesfully reaching the floor above while others are on the floor below.

Use the ITC's new terrain rules from LVO.

Or just accept that you aren't entitled to charge every model on the table, just like shooting units don't get a "drag into sight" rule that lets them remove units from behind LOS blocking terrain.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or just accept that you aren't entitled to charge every model on the table, just like shooting units don't get a "drag into sight" rule that lets them remove units from behind LOS blocking terrain.

This. Defending an enclosed and elevated position has been a tactic since time immemorial.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or just accept that you aren't entitled to charge every model on the table, just like shooting units don't get a "drag into sight" rule that lets them remove units from behind LOS blocking terrain.

Except that rules does exist, and it's existed for as long as the game has existed: it's called "Indirect weapons", or barrage or whatever it was called across different editions (Never mind when there were actual abilities that worked 100% like that in the past, like Lash of Submission or the Death Jester.)

Defending a position might be a long time tactic, but so was finding ways into those positions, but GW seems unwilling to provide assault units with the tools to do that. And that's besides the logical absurdities like a unit on the roof of a building being unable to be attacked by a walker that can physically reach them but is further than 1" away from the base.

...and for that last scenario you can house rule perfectly fine between friends.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
...and for that last scenario you can house rule perfectly fine between friends.

...Which is exactly what this house rule is intended to accomplish?

We are talking in context of the Cities of Death ruleset here, where a unit placed on the high ground gets the following advantages:

1) usual high ground advantage to LOS

2) +2 to their armor save almost always (assuming ruins are your "hard cover")

3) -1 to everyone else's cover saves because they have the high ground.

Giving them total immunity to all assaults by non-infantry, and immunity to all assaults period if they can cover the entirety of the platform, makes for a unit that is nigh unstoppable. The rule was implemented after a couple games that just wound down to two players with devastator-type heavy weapon units camping in ruins popping shots at each other and unable to cause any wounds.

"OK, I wounded your guy with my lascannons"

"Made my 4+ armor save. I wounded your guy with my krak missile."

"made my 2+ armor save."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Or just make melee range be 4" vertically and 1" horizontally.

That would mostly work well as a simplified version of the_scotsman's suggestion. The only weird thing that comes to mind is that you potentially wouldn't be able to consolidate into the enemy unit standing right next to the one you were just fighting from below if the next floor is more than 3" above you. But either BCB or the_Scotsman's suggestions seem very reasonable to me.

Perhaps it would also be useful to just add a line to the unit coherency rules stating that models ignore the first X" of vertical distance when measuring coherency? Just to make it less awkward to have some units succesfully reaching the floor above while others are on the floor below.

A simple suggestion like that has merit, the reason I suggested my slightly more complicated one to my group is because it didn't make sense that the attackers would have an EASIER time fighting a unit above them, vs a unit on their level. The disadvantage of not fighting first, and often not being able to lock the unit in combat, gave melee units a way to do damage to shooters above them, while retaining the advantage of taking and holding the high ground in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Or just make melee range be 4" vertically and 1" horizontally.

FWIW, this still wouldn't work with any GW ruins. You'd need to make it 5" - in which case it would work with all sector imperialis (old and new), GW shipping crates, but not sector mechanicus, which is a 6.5" height gap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Or just accept that you aren't entitled to charge every model on the table, just like shooting units don't get a "drag into sight" rule that lets them remove units from behind LOS blocking terrain.

That's funny, it seemed like in the previous edition when there was a very commonly used way for melee units to make themselves functionally immune to shooting while still being able to easily hit everything (Invisibility) it was a sore spot for a lot of people and created some negative game experiences.

the_scotsman wrote:
That's funny, it seemed like in the previous edition when there was a very commonly used way for melee units to make themselves functionally immune to shooting while still being able to easily hit everything (Invisibility) it was a sore spot for a lot of people and created some negative game experiences.

That's not at all comparable. Invisibility worked just fine on shooting units and was just as broken in those cases, and unlike limiting your unit's positioning to a few square inches of a single terrain piece invisibility could be cast on any unit without any drawbacks whatsoever. If it was used more frequently on melee units it's only because melee death stars were easy to build, while shooting death stars were often banned by "no LoW" house rules. Played straight RAW invisible Warhound titans would have been just as game-breaking as any melee list.

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
That's funny, it seemed like in the previous edition when there was a very commonly used way for melee units to make themselves functionally immune to shooting while still being able to easily hit everything (Invisibility) it was a sore spot for a lot of people and created some negative game experiences.

That's not at all comparable. Invisibility worked just fine on shooting units and was just as broken in those cases, and unlike limiting your unit's positioning to a few square inches of a single terrain piece invisibility could be cast on any unit without any drawbacks whatsoever. If it was used more frequently on melee units it's only because melee death stars were easy to build, while shooting death stars were often banned by "no LoW" house rules. Played straight RAW invisible Warhound titans would have been just as game-breaking as any melee list.

Regardless of why they were used on melee more often than ranged, can we agree that it's bad design to have something really easy that can completely shut down large parts (sometimes the entirety) of an army?

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
That's funny, it seemed like in the previous edition when there was a very commonly used way for melee units to make themselves functionally immune to shooting while still being able to easily hit everything (Invisibility) it was a sore spot for a lot of people and created some negative game experiences.

That's not at all comparable. Invisibility worked just fine on shooting units and was just as broken in those cases, and unlike limiting your unit's positioning to a few square inches of a single terrain piece invisibility could be cast on any unit without any drawbacks whatsoever. If it was used more frequently on melee units it's only because melee death stars were easy to build, while shooting death stars were often banned by "no LoW" house rules. Played straight RAW invisible Warhound titans would have been just as game-breaking as any melee list.

The only functional difference I see is in regards to the kinds of units the strategy is viable on.

There are a huge number of shooting units in the game currently that virtually never need to move if they are in a commanding position with good LOS. Others don't even need LOS.

In most missions, the players have at least some agency in where objectives are placed. There is nothing stopping me from placing the objectives I have control over up on the tops of ruins. If I do that, there is nowhere else my shooting unit needs to be or anywhere they could be gaining me greater advantage.

Invisibility came with its own drawbacks: you needed a caster, who you had to protect. You needed to successfully roll the power in the first place (or select it with a few expensive characters). You then needed to successfully manifest.

At the end of the day, though, there were so many situations where if you loaded it on to a sufficiently valuable unit (as you pointed out, mostly melee but also possibly shooting) it was pretty much considered a universal auto include.

Similarly, I am struggling to see a situation where I would not want to position my shooting units on top of ruins in the cities of death ruleset. The advantages to doing so are so enormous that if I have a unit constructed to benefit from it (long enough range, large enough unit size to fill the space) there is no reason not to, and it affords them functional invulnerability. Sure, you could fire something like a plasma gun at my devastators and get them down to a 4+ save, but you'd be wasting so much effort to kill them highly inefficiently.

It isn't quite on the level of power of invisibility, but the extremely low opportunity cost, the fact that it cannot fail, and the fact that I can put it on as many units as I have terrain features makes it fairly comparable in terms of game impact.

I think the main issue is the lack of a physical way to access the upper floor, such as a ladder or stairs. If you have stairs leading up to the top floor, then the unit defending the high ground can be assaulted, but is at an advantage because attackers have to form a line in the stairs, meaning usually only a couple models will be able to swing. And that's perfectly fine.

However, most terrain pieces don't have such features, and units can just teleport onto the upper floor if they have enough movement. That's where it breaks down. Vertical movement without using stairs/ladders is permitted by the rules, but it has to be done in one go (you can't stop mid-air), which penalizes charges that require you to stop at specific distances.
I think a better house rule is to designate at least one ladder/climbing feature between the floors of each terrain piece. Then every model that wants to access the top floor has to go through one of these features. Also, allow charging models to use it and stop partway through the climb, allowing them to be within 1" of the top unit and make a successful charge.

fresus wrote:
I think the main issue is the lack of a physical way to access the upper floor, such as a ladder or stairs. If you have stairs leading up to the top floor, then the unit defending the high ground can be assaulted, but is at an advantage because attackers have to form a line in the stairs, meaning usually only a couple models will be able to swing. And that's perfectly fine.

However, most terrain pieces don't have such features, and units can just teleport onto the upper floor if they have enough movement. That's where it breaks down. Vertical movement without using stairs/ladders is permitted by the rules, but it has to be done in one go (you can't stop mid-air), which penalizes charges that require you to stop at specific distances.
I think a better house rule is to designate at least one ladder/climbing feature between the floors of each terrain piece. Then every model that wants to access the top floor has to go through one of these features. Also, allow charging models to use it and stop partway through the climb, allowing them to be within 1" of the top unit and make a successful charge.

Definitely a possibility, but also, as you point out: Often there is no visible ladder. Also, very often you are dealing with a situation where by rights, the attacker really should be able to easily attack the defender (maybe the attacker can fly, or is tall enough to physically touch the defender).

40k is a game of abstractions, where we accept things that aren't necessarily "realistic" in all circumstances because they reduce bookkeeping and time it takes to figure things out.

With this "phantom ladder" solution, both players need to agree where the ladder points are, then keep track of all of them throughout the game, for every terrain piece, and they have to keep track of what model is on the ladder at any given time.

To me, that sounds like a lot of bookeeping. I'd play with this solution in Necromunda and kill team, but it feels a little out of scale for big 40k games.

The game just needs a more fleshed out rules pertaining to Z-axis.