How does "Fly" work?

[Gentlemanloser]

Abstract game system. /shrug

 

Why can a scout run through a wall but a dread cannot?

 

Why cant a titan three times the size of a ruin hit a dude standing on top of it?

Edited March 20, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Tyriks]

Nope. All distances are measured from their bases, on the ground.

Fliers aren't actually above anything.

Strange, several necron models say otherwise (Ghost Ark, Monolith). I just assumed flyers would say the same.

[Gentlemanloser]

The 'distances are always measured to and form Hull' even though it has a base?

 

Some vehicles (not just fliers) have that.  But the general rule is all distances are measured to base if you have one, hull if you don't.

 

For example the Stormraven has all distance measured to it's base.

[Quixus]

But where do you get the rule that if the starting point and the end point are at different heights that you do not use the hypotenuse but the sum of horizontal and vertical distance? Where is the rule saying that uneven terrains isn't measured in the same manner (i.e. if that method would require you to measure through terrain)?

[Gentlemanloser]

From 'Up, Across then Down'.  The only way to measure like that would be to start your vertical movement next to the terrain feature.  Then straight 'up', then across it, then 'down'.  Otherwise you could move up and over it in a single measurement.

 

Plus, if you want to retain at least a small touch of logical to movement, how do you explain diagonal movement?  You can get away with units 'climbing' up the side of terrain features without too much issue.  But leaping small buildings in a single bound like Superman.  A lot harder to swallow. ;)

 

Unless you have a Jump Pack of course.  But then you have the FLY keyword.

[Quixus]

From 'Up, Across then Down'.  The only way to measure like that would be to start your vertical movement next to the terrain feature.  Then straight 'up', then across it, then 'down'.  Otherwise you could move up and over it in a single measurement.

Please remind me where I can find that quote. Does it pertain to units with the fly keyword? IIRC this quote says nothing about a movement that starts a distance away from the obstacle, so it does not prohibit diagonal movement through the air.

 

Plus, if you want to retain at least a small touch of logical to movement, how do you explain diagonal movement?  You can get away with units 'climbing' up the side of terrain features without too much issue.  But leaping small buildings in a single bound like Superman.  A lot harder to swallow.

 

Unless you have a Jump Pack of course.  But then you have the FLY keyword.

I thought you said you would have to use the up, across, down method even with the FLY keyword

[Gentlemanloser]

One of the pre 8th FAQs.  I constantly forget which one.

 

It's a general rule.  Doesn't pertain to any distinct unit type or keyword.

 

Not if you're not landing on it.  If you're just moving past, you ignore it like always.  If you're landing on it, you measure as everyone else would.

 

It's just easier to handwave away diagonal movement with Jump packs, not that I mean the rules support diagonal movement.

[Quixus]

Since when have FAQ become rules, especially when they were published before the actual rules and contradict those? According to the rulebook any model can move in any direction, not just a direction in a horizontal plane.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Quixus

[Gentlemanloser]

FAQs are always rules. Otherwise they would be useless.

 

I assume you mean official?

 

Edit. And models can't move in any direction. Otherwise i could move mine straight down. ;)

Edited March 20, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Quixus]

FAQs are always rules. Otherwise they would be useless.

 

I assume you mean official?

I disagree, FAQ are explanations of rules not rules themselves and cannot contradict rules. If rules need to be changed, then GW needs to issue an erratum.

 

Edit. And models can't move in any direction. Otherwise i could move mine straight down.

You can't because the rules forbid to move through terrain. We do agree that the gaming table is terrain, don't we?

 

If you read the whole paragraph "Moving" on p. 177 it is explicitly said that:

1. You can move in any direction.

2. The movement distance may not be greater than the move characteristic.

3. You cannot move through terrain (or enemy models).

4. You can move vertically to get on top or past terrain.

 

1. tells us that movement in any direction is allowed. There is no restriction to any plane here.

2. tells us that trajectory is is irrelevant. So even if you the model move along the board to an obstacle and then straight up, whether you can reach that point is only decided by measuring the distance (i.e. shortest trajectory) between starting point and the end point.

3. clarifies that you cannot measure the distance in a straight line through intervening terrain, but must measure around/over it.

4. does not contradict 1. as 1 does not forbid movement through the air 4 just reiterates one of the options already given in 1. Since there is not further restriction, as long as there is no terrain (or enemy models) between the starting point and the end point, the distance is measured in a straight line, no matter how you physically move the model.

[Eddie Orlock]

Since when have FAQ become rules, especially when they were published before the actual rules and contradict those? According to the rulebook any model can move in any direction, not just a direction in a horizontal plane.

Well, if we really, really want to open this can of worms, I can't off hand cite a ready sentence that stipulates models, non-flying ones even, need to end their move in contact with any part of the playing surface. Well, maybe if you move over a ruin some types get sucked back down, but that's not the general case.

 

I guess I could march my guardsmen straight up into thin air to gain some distance against attackers. And I suppose then I'd invoke 'wobbly model' on them since it's ever so hard to balance figures on a gas. I'm not sure I could get this to fly in my play group.

 

I would suggest considering decoupling the concept of what direction a model can move in with how the distance along the path is measured. I suspect that for non-flying models, the locus of final destination points is a set contiguous to the exposed surfaces of the table top and associated terrain such that the final location can be traced back to the initial position via a path also contiguous to the exposed surface no longer than the allotted movement of the figure. Such a restatement avoids inferring that guardsmen can float because there's no constraints on the azimuth of a movement vector.

[Eddie Orlock]

2. tells us that trajectory is is irrelevant. So even if you the model move along the board to an obstacle and then straight up, whether you can reach that point is only decided by measuring the distance (i.e. shortest trajectory) between starting point and the end point.

3. clarifies that you cannot measure the distance in a straight line through intervening terrain, but must measure around/over it.

This seems to contradict itself. In two you state, without much room for equivocation that the path claimed is irrelevant and only final position matters for measurement purposes. In three you clearly put it that this is not true.

 

I suspect three is more generally the case, and that in most circumstances the path must be accounted for.

 

I'm curious where you got this whole 'shortest path' thing from, I don't see anything I read like that on pg 177. Maybe you got it from a FAQ on units with a minimum move?

[Gentlemanloser]

You can move in any direction.

 

When allowed.

 

You can move straight up. If infantry in a ruin.

 

You can move straight down. With the same clause.

 

If you're 2" away from a 2" high wall and want to stand on the top, have you moved 4" or 2.6" (or whatever the hypotenuse works out to be)?

 

Moving 2" to it, then 2" up it not only follows the main rule book but also the FAQ on how the movement rules should work.

[Quixus]

I would suggest considering decoupling the concept of what direction a model can move in with how the distance along the path is measured.

Well of course you do that, otherwise a player would be penalized for shaky hands or other unnecessary movements of the model

I suspect that for non-flying models, the locus of final destination points is a set contiguous to the exposed surfaces of the table top and associated terrain such that the final location can be traced back to the initial position via a path also contiguous to the exposed surface no longer than the allotted movement of the figure. Such a restatement avoids inferring that guardsmen can float because there's no constraints on the azimuth of a movement vector.

This may be the intention but that is not what the rules say. As written, guardsmen can "fly".

 

 

2. tells us that trajectory is is irrelevant. So even if you the model move along the board to an obstacle and then straight up, whether you can reach that point is only decided by measuring the distance (i.e. shortest trajectory) between starting point and the end point.

3. clarifies that you cannot measure the distance in a straight line through intervening terrain, but must measure around/over it.

This seems to contradict itself. In two you state, without much room for equivocation that the path claimed is irrelevant and only final position matters for measurement purposes. In three you clearly put it that this is not true.

 

I went from sentence to sentence there and forgot to add "unless otherwise restricted", such as with 3.

 

I suspect three is more generally the case, and that in most circumstances the path must be accounted for.

You may suspect that and I agree that it probably is the intention, but the rules do not say it. If GW wants to change that they need to write an erratum. there is no rule that you must calculate the distance as if the model stayed in contact with the gaming surface at all times. Since weapon ranges are measured from base to base, do you have to use this method when checking range as well?

 

I'm curious where you got this whole 'shortest path' thing from, I don't see anything I read like that on pg 177. Maybe you got it from a FAQ on units with a minimum move?

I got it from the English language definition 1. And from the necessity that distance should be unambiguous. Otherwise you could argue that there is another longer trajectory to the end point and as such the model would not be allowed to go there.

 

You can move in any direction.

 

When allowed.

Permission is given.

A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less

than the Move characteristic on its datasheet.

You can move straight up. If infantry in a ruin.

 

You can move straight down. With the same clause.

Yes, you can, but you are not required to. Also these permissions are already given with the rule quoted above. It is not worded as a restriction but as a (redundant) permission. Were it an additional restriction GW would have to have written something like "the whole length of the measuring tape must be in contact with the gaming board when measuring the distance. If that is not possible you may measure subsections of the distance that conform with the condition above and add the distances."

 

If you're 2" away from a 2" high wall and want to stand on the top, have you moved 4" or 2.6" (or whatever the hypotenuse works out to be)?

The length of the trajectory is 4" but the distance between the starting point and the end point is sqrt(8") ≈ 2.8"

 

Moving 2" to it, then 2" up it not only follows the main rule book but also the FAQ on how the movement rules should work.

Please quote that rule. IIRC the FAQ only talked about starting right next to the building, moving up across and down and ending right next to the building on the other side. This is totally in line with the exisitng restriction odf not being allowed to measure therough terrain without the FLY keyword. It however says nothing about not being allowed to measure through the air.

[Eddie Orlock]

...

I'm curious where you got this whole 'shortest path' thing from, I don't see anything I read like that on pg 177. Maybe you got it from a FAQ on units with a minimum move?

I got it from the English language definition 1. And from the necessity that distance should be unambiguous. Otherwise you could argue that there is another longer trajectory to the end point and as such the model would not be allowed to go there.

...

 

Part of literacy in a language is selecting the appropriate definition of a word when one is used with multiple possible definitions. To this end, how far do you think an airliner flies on a trip from Madrid, Spain to Cristchurch, New Zealand? About 19,500 km, or about 12,750 km?

 

Never the less, if we're to insist that only end points matter, then this carries an implication that so long as the path never takes your figure beyond it's maximum displacement from it's origin it can go by what ever circuitous route it needs to get there. Including, apparently, bounding through the air. Actually scratch that bit about not passing out of the envelope if we're only checking at the end. There's nothing about not measuring through terrain, only that you can't draw the movement path through terrain.

 

The upshot of this interpretation is that the movement related permissions of the Fly rule are near totally redundant. Which makes it an open question of if this was the intent, why did they write them. If this isn't the intent, perhaps there's a better set of definitions we can select that restores their utility.

 

----------

 

Incidentally, there's a rather excellent platoon level wwii game that implements movement in a manner much like you're describing. Fireball Forward. You should go check it out sometime.

[Gentlemanloser]

Quixus, when you argument allows minis to move up into thin air and stay there, that should ring alarm bells that something is wrong.

 

You can move in any direction. You are not given permission to move up into thin air at any point.

[Wargamer]

Are people seriously arguing that models should be legally able to end their move floating freely above the table? This is why rules lawyers should wear shock collars...

[Gentlemanloser]

As per page 177 units are only given permission to move vertically to 'climb or traverse <snip> scenary'

 

No permission to move down nor to move 'up' at any other time.

 

Edit. Which is why the FAQ states up, across and down.

 

You move to a scenary feature. Then you are allowed to climb up it, traverse across it, then move down.

 

You are not allowed to move up any other way. Except next to a scenary feature. Or sometimes in one, under their specific rules.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Quixus]

Quixus, when you argument allows minis to move up into thin air and stay there, that should ring alarm bells that something is wrong.

I never said that the model would stay where you put it if isn't standing on terrain. I said the trajectory does not matter as long as the distance is equal to or smaller than the move characteristic. You claim that you must move to the terrain piece and then up. There is no such rule. Giving permission to do something specific (move up or down next to a terrain piece) does not restrict the already given permission for something broader. Any direction means any direction, not only any direction on the horizontal plane. While you can move the unit as you describe you are by no means obligated to do so. You could move it diagonally, or even into another room and then onto the terrain piece. It does not matter as long as the distance between the starting point and the end point is not greater than the movement characteristic.

 

You can move in any direction. You are not given permission to move up into thin air at any point.

Giving permission to do something specific (move up or down next to a terrain piece) does not restrict the already given permission for something broader. Any direction means any direction, not only any direction on the horizontal plane.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you use the same calculation for weapon ranges? AFAIK there is no rule saying you should measure in a different manner. If you apply the horizontal + vertical distance along the surface calculation you must calculate weapon accordingly.

Is the distance for the weapon range a+b or c? I guess your weapon ranges got quite a bit shorter, if you use the weird horizontal + vertical distance. Or if not where are you given permission to use c? It is either one or the other for both measurements.

 

No returning to units with the FLY rule, do you use the forward + up calculation for them as well if they want to end their movement on top of a terrain piece? If not, where is the permission not to use it?

[Gentlemanloser]

You claim units have unrestricted movement, in any direction.

 

That would include directly up.

 

So what happens when you move an Armiger 14" directly up into thin air, as you claim we are permitted to do?

 

Also, your claim that you can move an unlimited amount, as long as start and end points are in the units movement range make things like Craters obsolete.

 

Why bother with a reduction in charge distance from a crater (you on one side, enemy on the other side of the crater) when you can simply move all the way around it in a circle, moving in essence an unlimited number of inches, until you are on the other side, unimpeded.

 

Edit: Or heck have a screening unit in between you and your charging target.  When if you roll enough to reach your charging target you can simply move and extra 20" all the way around any screening units to make your charge.

 

It's *obvious* that movement actually traces a contiguous line, and takes it's measurement from that.  Rather than allowing an unlimited path within a circle of a radius of the units movement stat.

 

Edit: As for shooting, we are told to measure ranges from closest part of base to closest part of base.  It's different measurement to Movement.  And doesn't follow the rules for Movement.

 

Edit: And yes, if a unit with the FLY keyword wants to end on/in a terrain feature/scenery they use the normal movement rules everyone uses to do so.

 

They are only allow to ignore terrain/scenery/other models if they are just passing through, and not ending their move on/in them (if allowed).

Edited March 21, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Eddie Orlock]

 

Quixus, when you argument allows minis to move up into thin air and stay there, that should ring alarm bells that something is wrong.

I never said that the model would stay where you put it if isn't standing on terrain.

 

Actually, you did. Right here:

 

[i guess I could march my guardsmen straight up into thin air to gain some distance against attackers. And I suppose then I'd invoke 'wobbly model' on them since it's ever so hard to balance figures on a gas. I'm not sure I could get this to fly in my play group.]

 

I suspect that for non-flying models, the locus of final destination points is a set contiguous to the exposed surfaces of the table top and associated terrain such that the final location can be traced back to the initial position via a path also contiguous to the exposed surface no longer than the allotted movement of the figure. Such a restatement avoids inferring that guardsmen can float because there's no constraints on the azimuth of a movement vector.

This may be the intention but that is not what the rules say. As written, guardsmen can "fly".

 

I mean, yeah, the physical model would fall, but we'd already invoked WMS to ignore physics and 'virtualise' the models location by the time we got to that.

Is the distance for the weapon range a+b or c? I guess your weapon ranges got quite a bit shorter, if you use the weird horizontal + vertical distance. Or if not where are you given permission to use c? It is either one or the other for both measurements.

This seems to be something of a false dichotomy, that measurement is only one type or the other. This is explicitly contradicted in the 'STEPPING INTO A NEW EDITION OF WARHAMMER 40,000' rules clarification document.

Q: How do vertical distances work for movement and measurements?

A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed its Movement characteristic. This means that in order to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move down it.

...

Q: When shooting with models, do I measure ranges from the model’s weapons, or from its base (or hull, if it’s a vehicle without a base)?

A: Distances are measured from the closest point of the model’s base (or from the closest point of the vehicle’s hull if it does not have a base) to the closest point of the target’s base (or hull).

Like many systems, it's expected that you read the documents in concert with one another to capture the true intent. Of course wilful ignorance of a source will lead to distorted conclusions.

[Gentlemanloser]

And that a 2" to and 2" up movement actually takes 4" of movement, not 2.8".

[BluejayJunior]

The stepping into a new edition document says "the horizontal and vertical distance combined cannot exceed its movement". That means that the horizontal and vertical distances must both be added together. If you are measuring from the floor to the top of the wall at an angle (the C from Quixus' graph), you are not doing that. The distance measured does take into account both the change in vertical and horizontal difference, but they are not being combined. Since horizontal and vertical distances are both specifically called out in the rule, they must be treated as separate.