Measuring distance vertically

[Cayseymax]

Hi had a discussion about how to measure distance vertically. I was using Akhan the Black, but was told I had to measure distance from base to base vertically eve though he is 6” tall! Is this really the correct way? This seems very illogical... 

how do you people do it???

[BaldoBeardo]

20 minutes ago, Cayseymax said:

Hi had a discussion about how to measure distance vertically. I was using Akhan the Black, but was told I had to measure distance from base to base vertically eve though he is 6” tall! Is this really the correct way? This seems very illogical... 

how do you people do it???

You can do it however you like, as long as your opponent agrees.

Butif you're playing by the core rules, then yes - you measure base to base.

[Overread]

Distance is measured to the base of the model, both horizontally and vertically. Yes this does mean that a dragon and a halfling "move" the same distance vertically as each other even though a dragon could step over some terrain that a halfling has to climb over; but in general this makes for a sensible way to play the game that doesn't get too complex.

 

So yep, one sticks to using the base of the model and where it moves too.

[Cayseymax]

Thank you for your answers. I was referring to attack distances... which does not seem to make sense to measure from base when it comes to vertical disstances! 

[Overread]

Aye, but don't forget models are only a representation on the tabletop. For example most single models of infantry likely represent hundreds to thousands of actual warriors on the battlefield. There are loads of things that logically don't make much sense, but the rules at least try to aim to give a level playing field, so yes attack distances would also be measured to the base of the model.

 

Otherwise a rearing dragon and a standing dragon would have different attack ranges vertically because the rearing one would appear taller, even if both dragons were the same size. 

[stato]

Measuring vertical attacking distance from the base is just stupid IMO, the base-to-base measurement is fine horizontally but models also occupy a vertical space which should be considered, which is why every sensible tournament follows the facehammer approach.

[Overread]

A more sensible approach would be for GW to introduce the concept of staged heights into the game. 

Ground floor - level 1 - level 2 etc... With each bit of terrain having each floor or level assigned a value suitable for its height. 

each model can then, based on its size and weapons, have a height attack. So for example a swordsman might only have a level 0 so it can only attack models on the same level as itself. Whilst a spearman might have a level 1 attack, meaning it can attack units one level up or down from its current level. A dragon might end up with a level 3 attack so it can sweep up or down 3 levels from its current level. 

 

 

That's far easier than "well just sort of measure from the top of most of the model" or even a sticky "well give each model a height in inches and add that to its attack range". Since most heights above are things like floors in a building (easy to convert) or cliffs or such so it would be easy to give each one a level number. 

[BaldoBeardo]

26 minutes ago, Overread said:

A more sensible approach would be for GW to introduce the concept of staged heights into the game. 

Ground floor - level 1 - level 2 etc... With each bit of terrain having each floor or level assigned a value suitable for its height. 

each model can then, based on its size and weapons, have a height attack. So for example a swordsman might only have a level 0 so it can only attack models on the same level as itself. Whilst a spearman might have a level 1 attack, meaning it can attack units one level up or down from its current level. A dragon might end up with a level 3 attack so it can sweep up or down 3 levels from its current level. 

 

 

That's far easier than "well just sort of measure from the top of most of the model" or even a sticky "well give each model a height in inches and add that to its attack range". Since most heights above are things like floors in a building (easy to convert) or cliffs or such so it would be easy to give each one a level number. 

It looks like you're suggesting giving every mini in the game an extra stat or basing an attack range on base size, as well as creating a method for defining terrain height increments?

I wouldn't call those "sensible" or "easier".

It'd also wind up creating its' own family of dumb situations.

The virtual volume model (à la warmachine) is streamlined and simple.

 

[Overread]

Aye no solution is not without its own issues, but my idea is to basically streamline the concept so that it makes things fairer. Generally speaking anything based off the models actual size and structure is open to abuse and problems even when using 100% straight from the box models (ergo no conversion; no fancy thicker base etc...). It also means that a model posed "short/crouching/walking" and one posed "tall/rearing" can have the very same height attack range as based on their actual size in the game; rather than on their model size which might be many inches different.