Hello all,
A few days ago I came across possibly the most bizarre 40k story I have ever encountered. At the Alamo GT a judge was called over for a dispute. A player was arguing that his Stormraven was un-chargable because the model was more than 5″ off the ground. Rules as written (RAW) states that you measure charge distances to the vehicle’s hull, and in this case the wing.
The judge measured the model and it appeared to be more than 5″ and was thus not a valid charge target. Afterwards the judge went home and checked his own Stormraven (hence the picture). He found that his model was less than 5″. While the judge did admit there could be multiple causes for this discrepancy, he decided to award a red-card to the player (although the event was already finished) and a future ban. This ban was made in light of three decision:
- The Player knew the edge case scenario should have been brought to the judge before the event and failed to personally communicate that, before or during the event.
- Angle Shooting
- Past History at previous events in the local area.
Now before I proceed let’s set some things straight. I was not at the event and my knowledge of the proceedings is entirely second-hand. It is possible the player in question was repeatedly abusing this mechanic to move-block and otherwise cheat their opponent. Reason #3 strongly hints that there may have been willful modelling for advantage going on, and that this person was a bad actor. However, I still feel this was handled poorly.
To start with, the blog post seems to imply the judge only measured their own model, with one measuring tape. There can be a surprising amount of variation between measuring tapes, especially when the margins are so thin (see below)
These differences only continue on when thinking about the model. Was the flying stand on a piece of cork on the base? Perhaps there was some variation in the model itself that was due to chance?
As I said before there has to be more at play here but it was poorly communicated. I initially started this article intending to be more harsh on the judges. Deciding on a whim to measure a model at home and then going for a red card seems a bit odd. However, reading the post again, especially the bit about past history has given me some pause. I wish the judges had mentioned if they talked to the other opponents or provided more details.
As such I will let the story pass without further comment. My only advice is to be aware of how high your models (and your opponent’s) are from the ground.
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
Charging a flying unit/airplane with a ground melee unit always seems dumb anyway. Sounds like dude definitely modeled for advantage and knew it.
So, what happened was this. Storm Raven is put into hover mode instead of aircraft mode. This means it’s chargeable like a normal vehicle, with a 5” vertical engagement range.
However, the bottom most tip of the wing on the offending players model was SLIGHTLY above 5” from the table. This meant that when being your units from reserve, which have to arrive outside of 9” horizontally from the tip of the wing, but since the wing was more than 5” above the table, when you CHARGED, you had to measure to the base instead, meaning that you now had 11.5” charges out of deepstrike.
That was the problem, “I get to measure everything from one point on my model, while YOU have to measure everything from another point, a point which was significantly harder to get to.”
More context: this offending player was told at another GT in March that they were ruling that everyone would be measuring from the tip of the wing, so charging from reserves was measured like normal.
According to rumors, they thought the ruling was stupid and just ignored it, and the judges didn’t find out until after the GT was over and then retroactively yellow carded them for ignoring the ruling.
So, 2 months later they’re at ANOTHER GT and instead of asking the judge for their ruling on the matter (as you might expect because you got a yellow card for angle shooting at a previous event and because there is ambiguity) they just decided to run with “I measure from here and you measure from there” and not say anything to the judges about it.
That is why they got carded. It was brought to the head judges attention, and the announcement was made like the Monday after the event.
There’s also a matter of whether or not the SR wing is 5”+ off the ground or not. Different people got different measurements, and when you add the fact that you measure the bottom of the tip of the wing to the TOP of the base of the charging model, it gets even more ambiguous. Because of the ambiguity they should have asked for clarification but instead chose the most advantageous interpretation.
if you read the post this is not the full story, a judge was involved and completed measurements.
There had also been a recent GW sanctioned even in the area ( GW ruling should take precedent surely we all agree on that over a local TO ) where it was ruled that you cannot charge the wings ( I believe the judge in question was also at the GW event as well ). The same judge has also previously ruled that you cannot disembark up to the wings distance due to it being more than 5″ meaning that same judge has made contradictory rulings on the model.
The judge also banned him for modeling for advantage but the said that he was pushing on the front of the model to raise the rear. This could be considered cheating if true however the judge could of simple asked the player to step back whilst measuring which would be standard practice to confirm no foul play
The judge then retroactively went home and measured his own model and posted some incredibly dubious pictures to support his ban as listed below:
1. Both images are taken from different angles with the one showing the “pushing” being taken from a higher angle.
2. The measurement was taken a good distance from the model, had he measured directly against the model this would alleviate point 1. However he did not and this way of measuring created the perspective illusion noted in point 1.
3. Most egregious of all is that he clearly has a full hand and firm grip on the model in the picture supposed to show the model being below 5″. he has no reason to have a hand on the model when measuring from that distance which indicates foul play by the judge.
This is without addressing the elephant in the room that they are different models made by different people and that no evidence has been presented that the judge did not intentionally alter his own model to support the ban.
What is even worse is that the 2nd place player refused to play the match after the ruling and quit. why is this behavior in a tournament setting being rewarded with 1st place, that is childish and disgraceful.
There was a reddit post where over twenty accounts posted pictures of them measuring their own stormravens – some people measuring two side by side.
The variance was crazy – some were coming in below 4.5”; some were coming at almost 6”. None of the people measuring two stormravens with the same tape measure got the exact same measurements.
I think we should be able to accept that there is a degree of variance in GW models, especially when modelling. I think circuit organisations (such as FLG or WTC) should make blanket rulings on these edge cases so that it isn’t left up to TOs.
Agreed. The models are only as close to the table as they are for practical reasons, not for any accuracy of representative height.
One cannot bayonet charge a Stuka dive bomber, as a real world (or historical war gaming) example.
It’s people like this, both the player and the ref, that are making 40k undesirable for others.
The fact that some flyers ride high on the stand, T’au for example, and others low, Dark Angels. The rule for chargeing flyers should be a fixed standard rule, they are all counted as x from the floor.
But oh my days, this is another nail in the coffin of 10e.
correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t “A models base is always considered to be part of the model” so would be eligible for base to base contact. The hull is only used if the model has no base, and/or the model overhangs the base.
to be fair gw cant write their rules worth a snoot! If only they really took the time to play test and re evaluate the rules. also I thought it was to a base for charges not just the module. i could be getting my editions mixed again…
Reason 1 is slightly flawed. The player in question *did* ask the judge at the event and he ruled the Stormraven was unchargeable due to 5″ (measured on sight). He then measured again at home with his own model and retroactively red carded.
But you measure the bases against aircraft…..
You are correct that you measure to and from bases of aircraft and walkers. The difference here is that the stormraven was in hover, meaning it loses the aircraft keyword. That puts you back to using hull measurements, which is where the problem arises.
Gw wrote a bad rule a long time ago that keeps causing these issues, but they refuse to fix it.
The models base is there that should be all you need to figure out what’s going on.
How I modeled the model should never have a mechanical effect on the game.
Blaming the player for using the rules is real dumb.
Gw wrote a bad rule a long time ago that keeps causing these issues, but they refuse to fix it.
The models base is there that should be all you need to figure out what’s going on.
How I modeled the model should never have a mechanical effect on the game.
Blaming the player for using the rules is real dumb.
Oh, it was completely done on purpose. 100%. The actual variance and model height, him citing it out as a rule? How convenient.
Even then, that rule tends to be one that can be easily forgotten. I wouldn’t even remotely challenge someone charging a vehicle in the first place. And if someone cited that rule in response, you’re seriously just being a little bitch about it.
That is ridiculous. Why would a ground troop be able to charge an aircraft. How absurd. If that is the case then just count the gd base as the charge target like every other game out there. SMFH.
Rule #7 Don’t take the Piss
Obvious contradictions between RAW and RAI are to be communicated before hand.
The 5″ rule is intended for minis in cover and positioning on the table NOT for flyers or flight stands. Pulling this out as a “Gotcha” is a questionable move with the best of intentions.
If there is a question of Modeling for Advantage then there is grounds for sanctions if the player. If that player has previously been sanctioned then a Red card is absolutely correct.
If there is any flaw here it’s in the judgement at the table. Although I understand competitive judging his difficult the judge needs to know or understand that either flyers can or cannot be charged not make a case by case call at individual tables.
People who like to get away with modeling for advantage are scum of the earth.
Oh, have GW messed the rules up AGAIN? What a surprise…
It’s been a complete mess since 2nd Ed, and it wasn’t particularly brilliant then.
Where in the rules is the maximum height of a flight stand established?
Im pretty sure the rules state only flying units can charge flying vehicles (like assault intercessors with jump packa) but could be wrong
From what I’ve seen, RAW is that you measure to the model or the base, whichever is closer. The only time you’re required to measure to the hull is if it doesn’t have a base.
I thought you just had to charge the base for hovering vehicles. Why would that rule suddenly change.
Tape looks unlevel in the picture. The angle leading to cosine error against the player. If this judge wishes to rule after the event then the least they could do is be very careful about their accuracy. They should have used an engineers steel ruler and not a tape measure if they are going to judge less than a sixteenth of an inch.
Rules as intended should always trump rules as written
The story here is really wrong on the rules and if it were true that would mean everyone here was gloriously wrong.
Assuming 10th Ed but similar tiles exist in past editions too.
The rules state that a charge must end within 1″ of a model. They also note that a model includes its base, which a storm raven has.
You only measure to the hull of a model if it has no base, but the storm raven has a base so that doesn’t come into effect.
Next the rules state that an AIRCRAFT tagged model like the storm raven can only be charged by a FLY unit so unless the charging unit had jump packs it was an illegal charge to begin with.
If the charging unit was a FLY unit or if the storm raven was using the hover rule and had lost the AIRCRAFT tag then the charging unit would still have charged the base.
The player must modeling for advantage was wrong about the rules, his opponent was wrong about the rules and most concerningly the damn judge was wrong about a core rule that has been more or less the same for multiple editions of the rules.
The red card however was correct because the player who raised his storm raven up thought he was doing it for advantage. Seriously screw folks who try to edge out the rules like that instead of playing the game like a person.
“One cannot bayonet charge a Stuka dive bomber, as a real world (or historical war gaming) example.”
Melee in 40k has never exclusively been “direct physical close combat with the opponent”. Going way back to 3rd edition, the rulebook described assault as (in addition to melee), “firing at point blank range at any target that presents itself”. It also represents things like throwing grenades & explosives, especially at vehicles, eg melta bombs & demo charges.
The Red Baron was famously shot down by a man with a rifle flying over an Australian infantry position.
And of course, using “reality” as a reason for something to exist in 40k will never make sense.
Richthofen was shot down by a AA Mounted Machine gun. Not a Infantry rifle.