Pinned Rules: Short Question - Short Answer (version 1.2 & 1.3)

Have you answered our survey about your preferred game size?
More details in this news item.

  • Twisted Magpie wrote:

    does the moving and shooting still effect through my opponents turn?
    If you mean if a -1 shall be applied to the impact hits when you stand and shoot if you moved the previous movement phase, answer is of course not.

    If you mean anything else, please, clarify

    Moderator

    Translation-Team ES

    Comission Painter

    Marathon Finiser :D


    My unupdated CMON gallery X/ ; I accept painting commissions. If you want me paint something for you, just PM!
  • New

    After reading about the ETC and 2D terrain, I have a doubt...

    Are we supposed to measure distances from a chartographic, 2D viewpoint (X, Y), or from a physical, 3D viewpoint (X, Y, Z)? A hill's slope can slightly affect the measures between both approaches (and it can vary from hill to hill in the case of the 3D) especially if it's prononunced and/or the slope part of the terrain piece is wide.
    I'm not a native English speaker, but I'd like to go on learning, so I'd appreciate grammar corrections.
  • New

    Nirnel wrote:

    After reading about the ETC and 2D terrain, I have a doubt...

    Are we supposed to measure distances from a chartographic, 2D viewpoint (X, Y), or from a physical, 3D viewpoint (X, Y, Z)? A hill's slope can slightly affect the measures between both approaches (and it can vary from hill to hill in the case of the 3D) especially if it's prononunced and/or the slope part of the terrain piece is wide.
    No Z
    Do not blindly trust ETC lists and results, they are biased
  • New

    Kisscool wrote:

    Nirnel wrote:

    After reading about the ETC and 2D terrain, I have a doubt...

    Are we supposed to measure distances from a chartographic, 2D viewpoint (X, Y), or from a physical, 3D viewpoint (X, Y, Z)? A hill's slope can slightly affect the measures between both approaches (and it can vary from hill to hill in the case of the 3D) especially if it's prononunced and/or the slope part of the terrain piece is wide.
    No Z
    Is it anywhere in the rules? I can't find it
    I'm not a native English speaker, but I'd like to go on learning, so I'd appreciate grammar corrections.
  • New

    Nirnel wrote:

    Kisscool wrote:

    Nirnel wrote:

    After reading about the ETC and 2D terrain, I have a doubt...

    Are we supposed to measure distances from a chartographic, 2D viewpoint (X, Y), or from a physical, 3D viewpoint (X, Y, Z)? A hill's slope can slightly affect the measures between both approaches (and it can vary from hill to hill in the case of the 3D) especially if it's prononunced and/or the slope part of the terrain piece is wide.
    No Z
    Is it anywhere in the rules? I can't find it
    From Page 10 "To determine the distance between two points on theBattlefield (or two units, or any other elements), you must always measure from the closest points, even if the line ofmeasuring goes through any kind of intervening or obstructing element. Ignore such obstructions for the purposesof measurement. The rules often refer to things being within a certain distance. Measure the distance between the closest points. Ifthis distance is less than the given range, they are considered to be within range. This means that a model is alwayswithin range of itself and that the entire model/unit does not need to be within range, only a fraction of it. When measuring distances to and from a unit, measure from their Boundary Rectangles."

    I see two ways to interpret this. A) You measure from the closest point of Unit A's boundary rectangle to the closest point of Unit B's boundary rectangle, using the shortest direct path, which would be a straight diagonal line from Unit A to Unit B ON TOP of the hill. This would take into account the height of the hill in the measurement. B) You consider the hill to be an "obstructing element" and you measure from the closest point of the boundary rectangle of Unit A to the closest point flat on the table where Unit B's closet point of the boundary rectangle would be, ignoring the obstruction of the height of the hill.

    I am really convinced that B is the only interpretation in line with the RAW. A hill obstructs the most direct measurement from unit to unit on the table.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by joshw4288 ().

  • New

    joshw4288 wrote:

    From Page 10 "To determine the distance between two points on theBattlefield (or two units, or any other elements), you must always measure from the closest points, even if the line ofmeasuring goes through any kind of intervening or obstructing element. Ignore such obstructions for the purposesof measurement. The rules often refer to things being within a certain distance. Measure the distance between the closest points. Ifthis distance is less than the given range, they are considered to be within range. This means that a model is alwayswithin range of itself and that the entire model/unit does not need to be within range, only a fraction of it. When measuring distances to and from a unit, measure from their Boundary Rectangles."
    I see two ways to interpret this. A) You measure from the closest point of Unit A's boundary rectangle to the closest point of Unit B's boundary rectangle, using the shortest direct path, which would be a straight diagonal line from Unit A to Unit B ON TOP of the hill. This would take into account the height of the hill in the measurement. B) You consider the hill to be an "obstructing element" and you measure from the closest point of the boundary rectangle of Unit A to the closest point flat on the table where Unit B's closet point of the boundary rectangle would be, ignoring the obstruction of the height of the hill.

    I must say that I have never observed anyone doing B in a game and have never seen anyone question version A in a game but it is certainly justifiable to use B based upon "ignore such obstructions for the purposes of measurement." I would just ensure that both players are measuring using the same method.
    I saw the same text that you did and, like you, I found two possible interpretations. Hence the question and my inability to find an answer in the rules.

    Ensuring that both players are using the same method, though, requires being councious of both ways of doing it in the first place, and I think most of us take one way or the other for granted, so maybe it's best if the matter is discussed. I hadn't pondered this question until today, for example, and it can mean the difference between charging a war machine on top of a hill and falling short for half an inch in some cases.
    I'm not a native English speaker, but I'd like to go on learning, so I'd appreciate grammar corrections.
  • New

    Nirnel wrote:

    joshw4288 wrote:

    From Page 10 "To determine the distance between two points on theBattlefield (or two units, or any other elements), you must always measure from the closest points, even if the line ofmeasuring goes through any kind of intervening or obstructing element. Ignore such obstructions for the purposesof measurement. The rules often refer to things being within a certain distance. Measure the distance between the closest points. Ifthis distance is less than the given range, they are considered to be within range. This means that a model is alwayswithin range of itself and that the entire model/unit does not need to be within range, only a fraction of it. When measuring distances to and from a unit, measure from their Boundary Rectangles."
    I see two ways to interpret this. A) You measure from the closest point of Unit A's boundary rectangle to the closest point of Unit B's boundary rectangle, using the shortest direct path, which would be a straight diagonal line from Unit A to Unit B ON TOP of the hill. This would take into account the height of the hill in the measurement. B) You consider the hill to be an "obstructing element" and you measure from the closest point of the boundary rectangle of Unit A to the closest point flat on the table where Unit B's closet point of the boundary rectangle would be, ignoring the obstruction of the height of the hill.

    I must say that I have never observed anyone doing B in a game and have never seen anyone question version A in a game but it is certainly justifiable to use B based upon "ignore such obstructions for the purposes of measurement." I would just ensure that both players are measuring using the same method.
    I saw the same text that you did and, like you, I found two possible interpretations. Hence the question and my inability to find an answer in the rules.
    Ensuring that both players are using the same method, though, requires being councious of both ways of doing it in the first place, and I think most of us take one way or the other for granted, so maybe it's best if the matter is discussed. I hadn't pondered this question until today, for example, and it can mean the difference between charging a war machine on top of a hill and falling short for half an inch in some cases.
    Upon further reflection, I am really convinced that B is not only RAW but already practiced the majority of the time without thinking about it. However, you will not find an explicit rule in the book that says to ignore the Z plane. I think we are thinking too hard about what counts as obstruction of terrain, which is really just anything that prevents a straight line measurement. B is correct and most in line with the rules as written in this measurement section.
  • New

    Along the same line of closest point, this situation came up in a game recently...


    Unit A is shooting at Unit B, and Unit B is in the front arc of Unit A

    When measureing distance for close\long range, do you
    1. Use closest to closest point (even though you cannot see or shoot at the closest point as it is out of arc)
    2. Use the closest point in Arc\line of sight



    Mid-Atlantic Region Representative: US Masters Committee

    Blog: Wargaming from the Balcony
    YouTube: Wargaming from the Balcony
  • New

    Traumdieb wrote:

    I got a unit of dread legs with four rows and a altar (60x100) which were touched by a phoenix. Does he really make damage for five rows to the unit even a fifth row of unit does not exist?
    The Phoenix is 5 deep. So yes you have 5ranks.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Benjamin Franklin


  • New

    Dogday Sunrise wrote:

    When I cast the evocation spell that lets me reroll failed to wound rolls on a chariot, may I reroll to wound rolls from Impact hits?

    Impact hits are special attacks and those cannot be combined with other special rules. But isn't a spell, that is not granting a special rule, working on special attacks?
    On the same tournament.
    Plz write the rules for dangerous terrain test when running through multiply enemy units more exactly.
    Right now they are not 100%
    Clear.

    "when running though enemies models the unit take dt 3

    You don't know if for each unit or not

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Benjamin Franklin