Measuring range and elevation

[mustardParty]

This has come up a couple of times now and I'm curious what the B&C take is.

 

Let's try this: I have a BA priest in a unit on the ground level, and I have an marine assault squad on some piece of terrain next to that unit - the terrain is raised, say the roof of some large bunker. Now I want to see if my assault marines are in range of the priest's bubble to see if I get my FC and FNP - do I measure from straight above the preist, or do I measure in a straight line from the priest and from a true spherical bubble?

 

This is kind of abstract I guess, but it can make a difference - when measuring for such an effect, is the area measured as a cylinder around the priest, or a sphere? This makes a difference because if I measure as a cylinder I get 'more' range than measuring as a sphere.

 

...

 

I think this will make more sense illustrated:

http://awesomepalace.com/test/diagram.jpg

 

ok, how about that? You can see that when the priest is in that sweet spot he's just far enough away to not grant his buffs if you measured assuming that you measured a virtual sphere around the priest, but if you measured as a virtual cylinder then it would be just in range. What do you guys think?

[stinkenheim]

I would assume that just like measuring range for a weapon, you would measure it at an angle. In the diagram above that would mean you were out of range sadly, but it is a lot less cheesy than someone 12" (only 4 floors) up a building claiming the bonuses because the priest was on the ground floor directly beneath them.

[mustardParty]

I would assume that just like measuring range for a weapon, you would measure it at an angle. In the diagram above that would mean you were out of range sadly, but it is a lot less cheesy than someone 12" (only 4 floors) up a building claiming the bonuses because the priest was on the ground floor directly beneath them.

 

 

Fair enough, I have no problem with this reasoning on its face. I only bring this up as a point of contention because if you look at the BRB for ruins (p85) it shows how you would determine hits from a template weapon like a flamer and measuring doesn't take place from the tip of the flamer but is abstracted so that the flamer template is measured from above. The diagram in the book shows how you would use a template to target units on the third story. Hitting units on the third floor would almost be impossible if we were to measure in a straight line. Instead you simply declare which floor you are targeting and hold the template about everything and everything under the 2d plane specified is hit.

 

Relavent?

[Grey Mage]

I prefer the two dimensional distances personally, but as far as I recall, there is no RAW on that one.

[Frosty the Pyro]

I prefer the two dimensional distances personally, but as far as I recall, there is no RAW on that one.

 

Distance in a three dimisional feild is in three diminsions If you want two dimensional distances, then make sure you only play on flat boards.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Sphere, because the game is in 3d.

[greatcrusade08]

if elevation counts towards movement then it really hould count towards firing too

[Gurth]

In fourth edition, you measured flat along the ground. This could lead to ridiculous situations: I have a tower that's about 70 cm (call it 28 inches) tall, so if you put a figure up on that, a model on the ground with a bolt pistol could still shoot the one on the tower if they were within 12 inches of each other horizontally …

 

In fifth edition, page 3 says: "when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference point." Page 17, under Check Range, has similar text: "simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit." Page 83 has an illustration of an eldar jet bike moving 9 inches into a ruin diagonally up. All this implies that you measure diagonally up if the models are at different elevations, I'd say.

[ArmouredWing]

In fourth edition, you measured flat along the ground. This could lead to ridiculous situations: I have a tower that's about 70 cm (call it 28 inches) tall, so if you put a figure up on that, a model on the ground with a bolt pistol could still shoot the one on the tower if they were within 12 inches of each other horizontally …

 

In fifth edition, page 3 says: "when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference point." Page 17, under Check Range, has similar text: "simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit." Page 83 has an illustration of an eldar jet bike moving 9 inches into a ruin diagonally up. All this implies that you measure diagonally up if the models are at different elevations, I'd say.

I'd agree. CoD was the precursor of many of the changes that we saw introduced into 5th ed and along with TLoS rules was also the ruling for measuring direct between the firer and target when on different levels. With that being the case my money is with the direct line between the 2 points.

[stinkenheim]

I only bring this up as a point of contention because if you look at the BRB for ruins (p85) it shows how you would determine hits from a template weapon like a flamer and measuring doesn't take place from the tip of the flamer but is abstracted so that the flamer template is measured from above. The diagram in the book shows how you would use a template to target units on the third story. Hitting units on the third floor would almost be impossible if we were to measure in a straight line. Instead you simply declare which floor you are targeting and hold the template about everything and everything under the 2d plane specified is hit.

 

Afaik (bearing in mind I play city fight almost exclusively) flamers are only able to shoot one floor above or below the firers position, so you would never be able t shoot a flamer from the ground floor into the third floor. The reason for not angling the template is simply that is would be harder to decide how many models were covered.

Blast templates are the ones that pick the floor they are aiming at and the scatter along that horizontal plane.

[Cruss1307]

sorry to post so long after this thread has been unused, but if what you guys say is true, about using the 'sphere' method of measuring, what is the benefit of firing from a higher elevation?

[Frosty the Pyro]

sorry to post so long after this thread has been unused, but if what you guys say is true, about using the 'sphere' method of measuring, what is the benefit of firing from a higher elevation?

Line of sight. higher elevations can often fire over things that would block line of sight or provide cover saves.

[thade]

sorry to post so long after this thread has been unused, but if what you guys say is true, about using the 'sphere' method of measuring, what is the benefit of firing from a higher elevation?

Line of sight. higher elevations can often fire over things that would block line of sight or provide cover saves.

 

Frosty is spot-on here; more of a tactics question though. =)

[Hellios]

sorry to post so long after this thread has been unused, but if what you guys say is true, about using the 'sphere' method of measuring, what is the benefit of firing from a higher elevation?

Line of sight. higher elevations can often fire over things that would block line of sight or provide cover saves.

 

In addition to this is takes movement to climb up the levels of a building so you might get a few extra turns of shooting because a CC squad takes 5 years to reach you by climbing up.