Rules question regarding ignoring verticle movement and charges

[Guest]

(1) If you ignore verticle movement (or otherwise ignore terrain), is that distance ignored for the purposes of charges? 

(2) If you ignore verticle distances for moving, are you able to be considered within 1" of the enemy for melee purposes if you are horizontally within 1" but not vertically not within 1"?

This hasn't come up for me, but someone was asking about it at WOW the other night and I didn't know the answer. Seems like a question worth knowing the answer. Apparently it comes up in their circles regarding models with fly or harly flip belts (or are they holo belts?).

[happycamper]

1) if you have an ability that allows you to ignore vertical distance, yes (such as grappling hooks on reapers)

2)no as the distance is measure Base to base

[WestRider]

1) Sort of. The Main Rulebook FAQ (Pg.4, second column, about halfway down)  says that you get to ignore the vertical distance when making the Charge Move, but you still have to be within 12" by direct (i.e. diagonal) measurement to be able to declare the Charge in the first place. So if there's someone on top of a 14" tower, you can't declare a Charge on them unless there's some way of getting at least a couple of inches up, but if there's a Unit that's 6" away horizontally and 8" up in a Ruin, you can declare a Charge against them because they're only 10" away, and will only need a 6 to succeed in that Charge.

2) No, as mentioned by HappyCamper

[happycamper]

So for example you can drop reivers in 10” away vertically but only say 2” away horizontally. And then only need to make a 2” charge.  Now this Isn’t a common setup but still

[WestRider]

46 minutes ago, happycamper said:

So for example you can drop reivers in 10” away vertically but only say 2” away horizontally. And then only need to make a 2” charge.  Now this Isn’t a common setup but still

Exactly. It doesn't come up often to that extent, but it's more common on some types of table than others. With the new GW Terrain, being able to trim 5" off a Charge with Fly is not too rare.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, happycamper said:

So for example you can drop reivers in 10” away vertically but only say 2” away horizontally. And then only need to make a 2” charge.  Now this Isn’t a common setup but still

Isn't the drop done in the movement phase? Setup counts as moving. Why wouldn't they ignore the vertical distance there?

[Ish]

He means it’s pretty rare to have a 10” vertical terrain piece with Reivers on top and targets 2” away from the bottom.

Most enemy players will only let you pull this trick off once. Then they learn their lesson.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ish said:

He means it’s pretty rare to have a 10” vertical terrain piece with Reivers on top and targets 2” away from the bottom.

Most enemy players will only let you pull this trick off once. Then they learn their lesson.

I see the point that trying to be made, but you are creating a double standard. The rule which allows the unit to set up 9" away from the enemy is also the rule that says you ignore vertical movement when a unit moves. The rulebooks says that setting up is considered movement. Seems like the wording for Reivers suggests that vertical distance would also be ignored when setting up the models 9" away from the enemy.

So you'd have to deploy the reivers 9" away horizontally if you give them grapple launchers.

Fly is worded differently, so no clue as to the intentions.

[Ish]

You’re talking about deployment, specifically; im talking about movement in general.

[WestRider]

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

I see the point that trying to be made, but you are creating a double standard. The rule which allows the unit to set up 9" away from the enemy is also the rule that says you ignore vertical movement when a unit moves. The rulebooks says that setting up is considered movement. Seems like the wording for Reivers suggests that vertical distance would also be ignored when setting up the models 9" away from the enemy.

So you'd have to deploy the reivers 9" away horizontally if you give them grapple launchers.

Fly is worded differently, so no clue as to the intentions.

The phrase "In addition" in between those two parts of the rule indicates that it has two separate effects. They're just described in the same place because they're both granted by the same piece of wargear.

[WestRider]

Aaaand then the FAQ came out and reversed it.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Aaaand then the FAQ came out and reversed it.

In fairness, it didn't ever seem like it was GW's intention to allow those 0" charges. I mean, if that was their intention, then you'd more units that could deploy closer without the mentioned loophole. Or they'd at least explain in a more direct manner than they intended jump infantry to be allowed 0" charges. 

 

[WestRider]

Yeah, I was more just amused by the timing, with the FAQ coming out the day after we'd resolved the question.

[peter.cosgrove]

Ok so, the FAQ that came out after the FAQ was written was because of poor editing on GW's part and tools using the poorly edited FAQ as RAW in tournaments.

The BRB clearly states that all measurements are done base to base. So if your fly unit is going to move 10" on the diagonal, then you moved 10".

Jumping 10" up into the 2nd floor of a ruins with a 9" vertical and a 2" horizontal, is STILL a 10" movement measured base to base. As per the movement rule on the FIRST page of the BRB.

I do think it's interesting that they added that it only applies during the movement phase and you can't move again after deploying from deep strike (because the BRB states you can't move again after being set up on the battlefield as reinforcements).

 

[Dusldorf]

7 hours ago, peter.cosgrove said:

I do think it's interesting that they added that it only applies during the movement phase and you can't move again after deploying from deep strike (because the BRB states you can't move again after being set up on the battlefield as reinforcements). 

Unlike the first stipulation, the latter wasn't about restricting models with the fly special rule, but the free "as-if" moves that come from powers like warptime and quicken.

[peter.cosgrove]

Yep. one of rules in the BRB that GW had to patiently remind us of. \

Although, to be fair, there have been times where a rule, generally from stratagems, is in conflict with another rule, and the basic assumption is, ok, I can't do this normally BUT this other rule that I am paying for in command points or psychic tests says I can, therefore I should be able to do this.

[Ish]

A general rule of thumb is the maxim “specific over general.” Because, on the whole, WH40k is an “exceptions-based” game, rather than a “permissions-based” game.

In an “exceptions-based” design, the core rules tell you how things always work, but special rules give you exceptions to bypass those rules in certain circumstances.

 

[Guest]

On 10/8/2018 at 10:44 AM, Ish said:

A general rule of thumb is the maxim “specific over general.” Because, on the whole, WH40k is an “exceptions-based” game, rather than a “permissions-based” game.

In an “exceptions-based” design, the core rules tell you how things always work, but special rules give you exceptions to bypass those rules in certain circumstances.

 

I think this style requires more FAQs.

[Ish]

I think the FAQs are due more to GW’s “conversational” style of writing their rules,  instead of a more “legalistic” style of writing.