New FAQ Out Today

dumpeal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I'm not seeing the issue. How does charging a unit on the upper floor of a ruin relate to charging one of our skimmers?

The hover rule state you use the hull to calculate the distances from the raider. Since the hull is more than 1'' from the ground, the base of a model charging a raider is more than 1'' away. Hence, couldn't charge.

I see what you're saying. You couldn't get "within" an inch. RAW maybe / maybe not, RAI def be able to charge.

Do the blade vanes / rudder count as hull? What about shock prow / no shock prow pointy bit? I'd say yes, because I certainly use them to measure distances! They stick lower than one inch away from the table.

If our skimmer pilots were smart they'd probably be flying 20ft in the air be on flying bases and kill melee with impunity. But that'd make a boring game, the merit of discussing whether or not you can charge a raider/ravager is pointless because you should and can.

Arguing over these semantics is pointless and just turns people off from the forum, so can we discuss perhaps something that isn't rules lawyering please?

I wouldnt count bladevanes as hull nor the flag post unless my opponent stats "oh i can see the tip of your flag post so i can shoot you!" then he will get shot from the flag post...
But does this mean we should use the tall "stick" when we put the raider on its base?
And does this mean i cant charge with my raider to soak overwatch before i move in my 10+ wyches?
Im confused here!

So it would cost just under 750 points for x3 battalions for us. How does that compare with other armies?

That's basically 2x Archon, 3x5 Kabs, 2x Succubus, 3x5 Wyches, 2x Haemy, 3x5 Wracks.

You get 18 CP for 750 points...all you do next is start to fill that list out.

There is still a tourney restriction on taking only one of any detachment right? So you couldn't actually take x3 battalion right?

Rhivan wrote:

Arguing over these semantics is pointless and just turns people off from the forum, so can we discuss perhaps something that isn't rules lawyering please?

I hardly think it's rules lawyering or semantics. It is now official that you can't charge a unit standing on a ledge more than 1 inch off the ground, so why would you be able to charge a model hovering the same distance above the ground?

Plus, you know, if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I'd like to know why, and there's no need to be snide.

Barking Agatha wrote:

I hardly think it's rules lawyering or semantics. It is now official that you can't charge a unit standing on a ledge more than 1 inch off the ground, so why would you be able to charge a model hovering the same distance above the ground?

Well lets just look at this through the lens of being sportsman. You have a friend who is playing a full melee army with no shooting whatsoever (for whatever reason) and you as a Dark Eldar player only have things in boats. Assuming that he can't charge our hovercraft you win. Case closed GG well played. Sounds like a blast no?

This interpretation of course is only fair and balanced.  Honestly it's a blast to think about how mean we could be with this and it'd probably be fluffy lorewise. But I certainly wouldn't play against anyone insisting that because their bases have their models hovering that I can't charge them.

So I apologize for appearing snide, but looking at it from the angle of your opponent makes you just seem like a rules lawyer to put it politely.

EDIT: Also the hovering rule says you measure from hull or base whichever is closer so if you can get within an inch of the base then the argument from measuring from hull is void either way)

dumpeal wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I'm not seeing the issue. How does charging a unit on the upper floor of a ruin relate to charging one of our skimmers?

The hover rule state you use the hull to calculate the distances from the raider. Since the hull is more than 1'' from the ground, the base of a model charging a raider is more than 1'' away. Hence, couldn't charge.

But the FAQ rules that were quoted refer specifically to models in elevated terrain. Are they completely unrelated to the argument being made?

With the recent FaQ what do people think of a Brigade Kabal list like

9 Kabalites Squads in venoms (3 trueborn)
3 Single Razorwing Flock
3 Ravagers

Then if the opponent wants to deepstrike just rush forward and take up the entire board so that there's no room to do so. Should really mess with the alpha strikes given that by T2 there shouldn't be any room for him to drop in. Potentially fit in some reavers somewhere with the +2 move and use the 28" advance to really lock down the board.

Would it work or ??

Rhivan wrote:

Well lets just look at this through the lens of being sportsman. You have a friend who is playing a full melee army with no shooting whatsoever (for whatever reason) and you as a Dark Eldar player only have things in boats. Assuming that he can't charge our hovercraft you win. Case closed GG well played. Sounds like a blast no?

I see the point. But let's say I have an all melee army (wracks, wyches, taloi), and my opponent puts all of his models on elevated ruins. I can't charge them, he wins. Case closed, gg, well played, etc., and it's official: that's what the faq says.

What should I say? Please move your models to the ground so that I can charge you? Let us ignore the faq and allow charges even though the models are more than 1" apart?

I'm perfectly willing to fudge GW's rules if it makes things more fun, but fair is fair. If you can charge my elevated models beyond 1 inch, then I can charge yours, and if I can't charge yours, then you can't charge mine.

Besides, how exactly does charging a raider or venom work then? How do you move a model within 1" of its hull, or do you ignore the vertical distance in this case, and if so, why is this an exception?

Soulless Samurai wrote:

But the FAQ rules that were quoted refer specifically to models in elevated terrain. Are they completely unrelated to the argument being made?

The FAQ clarifies what happens when you can't place the charging models within 1" of their enemy: the charge fails. I don't know about you, but we've been playing it that they could be fought from below. Apparently that was wrong: if you can't bring the charge move within 1" of them, they can't be charged at all.

That means that an imperial guardsman standing on a 1.5" crate could be surrounded by genestealers and laugh in their faces. Silly, yes, but that's what the FAQ says, and I promise you that this is going to be exploited to the fullest.

So why wouldn't that apply to models that are already hovering at least 1.5" above the ground?

Barking Agatha wrote:

Rhivan wrote:

Well lets just look at this through the lens of being sportsman. You have a friend who is playing a full melee army with no shooting whatsoever (for whatever reason) and you as a Dark Eldar player only have things in boats. Assuming that he can't charge our hovercraft you win. Case closed GG well played. Sounds like a blast no?

I see the point. But let's say I have an all melee army (wracks, wyches, taloi), and my opponent puts all of his models on elevated ruins. I can't charge them, he wins. Case closed, gg, well played, etc., and it's official: that's what the faq says.

What should I say? Please move your models to the ground so that I can charge you? Let us ignore the faq and allow charges even though the models are more than 1" apart?

I'm perfectly willing to fudge GW's rules if it makes things more fun, but fair is fair. If you can charge my elevated models beyond 1 inch, then I can charge yours, and if I can't charge yours, then you can't charge mine.

Besides, how exactly does charging a raider or venom work then? How do you move a model within 1" of its hull, or do you ignore the vertical distance in this case, and if so, why is this an exception?

@Keast Kannegaard just cleared this up in another post:

<<<Think Im just going to leave this here before more misinformation is being spread:

"Hovering: Instead of measuring distance and ranges to and from the models base, measure to and from this models hull or base (whichever is closer)". >>>

N3ver mercy wrote:

@Keast Kannegaard just cleared this up in another post:

<<<Think Im just going to leave this here before more misinformation is being spread:

"Hovering: Instead of measuring distance and ranges to and from the models base, measure to and from this models hull or base (whichever is closer)". >>>

Unless you can fit the charging model under the Raider, that changes nothing

If I got to a game and someone tried to claim their skimmers were unchargeable, I'd call them something unpleasant and leave again. You're taking an incredibly unlikely situation of an entire army sitting on elevated terrain and perfectly filling every bit of it, to try and justify our transport and gunboat being unchargeable 100% of the time. Surely nobody here really believes in this argument or would ever try and pull such nonsense in a game. Come on guys, my opinion of everyone on this forum is higher than that.

Barking Agatha wrote:

N3ver mercy wrote:

@Keast Kannegaard just cleared this up in another post:

<<<Think Im just going to leave this here before more misinformation is being spread:

"Hovering: Instead of measuring distance and ranges to and from the models base, measure to and from this models hull or base (whichever is closer)". >>>

Unless you can fit the charging model under the Raider, that changes nothing

well raiders are not very wide? and most inf do not take up there full bases.
So getting part of an inf models base under the raider and within 1 inch of the raiders base shouldn't be very hard at all?

im sure you could check this quite easily as well?

yellabelly wrote:

If I got to a game and someone tried to claim their skimmers were unchargeable, I'd call them something unpleasant and leave again. You're taking an incredibly unlikely situation of an entire army sitting on elevated terrain and perfectly filling every bit of it, to try and justify our transport and gunboat being unchargeable 100% of the time. Surely nobody here really believes in this argument or would ever try and pull such nonsense in a game. Come on guys, my opinion of everyone on this forum is higher than that.

Thanks for summing up what I was about to post man +1

Barking Agatha wrote:

Well I dunno. We weren't even halfway through complaining about the new codex, and now we have to complain about these changes to it. How many hours of the day does GW think we can devote to complaining? We need our sleep!

On the other hand, please please please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there's this:



Distances are measured from the bases of models (unless they are Hovering), and our Raiders and Venoms float over 1 inch above the ground, so... doesn't that mean that our vehicles can't be charged?

I've either missed something obvious because my poor brain is hopelessly addled or this is probably unintentional, but if we have to take the unintentional negative consequences of GW's fiddling about, surely it's only fair that we benefit from the positive ones?

This was already covered in an FAQ very early on, it basically amounts to "dont be a dick".

Interesting points all. I decided to go back to the codex to see the exact wording.

For Raiders and Ravagers, the "hovering" rule states that you measure to the model OR the hull, whichever is closer. (i.e. you would still need to factor in the base)

For Venoms, there is no such rule...... This means that you always use the base, since that is the standard rule, and there is nothing to tell you to ignore flying bases in the standard 8th ed rules (unless I've missed it)

For craftworld vehicles, their hover tanks all say that you always measure from the hull. (i.e. always ignore the base). That said their hover tanks are usually going to be within an inch of the ground.

Malakree wrote:

With the recent FaQ what do people think of a Brigade Kabal list like

9 Kabalites Squads in venoms (3 trueborn)
3 Single Razorwing Flock
3 Ravagers

Then if the opponent wants to deepstrike just rush forward and take up the entire board so that there's no room to do so. Should really mess with the alpha strikes given that by T2 there shouldn't be any room for him to drop in. Potentially fit in some reavers somewhere with the +2 move and use the 28" advance to really lock down the board.

Would it work or ??

Good until you remember that you need beastmasters to use beasts in matched pplay, and that beastmasters would cost you trueborn slots and your obsession

Malakree wrote:

With the recent FaQ what do people think of a Brigade Kabal list like

9 Kabalites Squads in venoms (3 trueborn)
3 Single Razorwing Flock
3 Ravagers

Then if the opponent wants to deepstrike just rush forward and take up the entire board so that there's no room to do so. Should really mess with the alpha strikes given that by T2 there shouldn't be any room for him to drop in. Potentially fit in some reavers somewhere with the +2 move and use the 28" advance to really lock down the board.

Would it work or ??

Good until you remember that you need beastmasters to use beasts in matched pplay, and that beastmasters would cost you trueborn slots and your obsession

The Beastmaster looks ok (not great). For 40 points swinging an Agonizer on 12" move is decent. With the character keyword and an innate low target priority, the model should survive quite a while. I'm actually debating on running a few small Khymerae squads for skirmish lines and grabbing objectives for maelstrom.

N3ver mercy wrote:

well raiders are not very wide? and most inf do not take up there full bases.
So getting part of an inf models base under the raider and within 1 inch of the raiders base shouldn't be very hard at all?

You are of course quite right. I let myself get carried away. I shall go and stick my head in a bucket in abject shame.

I somehow still have the feeling that a lot of people are going to exploit this FAQ rule and place infantry on slightly elevated objects like crates, barrels or the like to make them immune to close combat.

I actually encountered this situation even before the FAQ was out. I was confronted with the rules and he was right. Wyches can't fight against a model standing on a 1.2" high crate because the distance is measured from base to base.

EDIT: Maybe they could allow us to pile up the models over each other so they can reach the enemy. In this way, it would work at least for small stuff like barrels. I understand that charging is not possible e.g. if an enemy unit occupies a complete level of a ruin. That sounds logical to me. They just barricaded themselves in some upper level and therefore should be safe from charging enemies.

(Climbs atop tree trunk) Now that four of a kind is out, what are folks going to try out for their court? I was considering mono-sslyth for thematic reasons but now I'm kinda stoked to try out lhameans and Poisoned Tongue.

They should add a rule saying that if you still try to charge them, you can, but attack last.

I think that if GW were to just rule that you measure from model-to-base (or model to hull, in the case of assaulting skimmers with the 'hover' rule) rather than base-to-base when determining vertical distance, it would clear up most confusion regarding assaults in multi-level terrain.

zelatar wrote:

(Climbs atop tree trunk) Now that four of a kind is out, what are folks going to try out for their court? I was considering mono-sslyth for thematic reasons but now I'm kinda stoked to try out lhameans and Poisoned Tongue.

Keep in mind that the restriction on data sheets is ONLY for tournaments. For normal matched play, no restriction.