A question about engagement range

[exeteroborach]

So, it was a unit of Boyz assaulting a Drukhari Venom. 
The rules in the Venom's profile give it the Hover type which says you always measure distances from the hull and not the base. 
So there were two Boyz in front of the Venom and the rest behind them. Two of the Boyz were within half an inch of the two in front. However, the rules say you only count as being in engagement range if the model is half an inch of another freindly model that itself is within half an inch of the target. (No arguement there).
So, you measure distance between the closest points of a models' base. "Point" is physical not visual right?. So engagement range is one inch horizonatally and 5 inches vertically right? So the front tip of the Venom is more than one inch above the base of the front Boyz therefore you must use the vertical distance to be considered in range. The Ork player claimed that the two boyz within half an inch behind the front two count as being able to fight because the front two are within half an inch of the Venom's hull because you get a bird's eye view and count the horizontal distance between the bases and hull in that perspective. 
I told them you have to measure the distance at a vertical angle and since the Boyz in front are out of half an inch horizontally, the Boyz behind them don't get to fight. 
They said that you don't measure vertically that way.
Then why does the rule for engagement range specifically mention a five inch vertical distance? 
Any feedback is appreciated. 

[exeteroborach]

Actually. If we measure vertically up to 5 inches to determine engagement range, then the two Boyz in the back and a few others may have been in range in their own right. Hmmm.......

[exeteroborach]

So I guess the question should be: at what degree do you stop using horizontal distance and use vertical distance. After 45 degrees? 

[piersonsmuppet]

This is tricky because while engagement range is measured from a bird's eye view, the 1/2" of 1/2" is not because it isn't explicitly stated to be a cylinder (like engagement is). I think the way most tournaments rule is that the 5" vertical cylinder is also applied to the 1/2" of 1/2", otherwise only front ranks can ever fight something >1/2" off the ground. While measuring on the vertical angle is correct RAW; it is time consuming, very difficult to accurately measure, and is super easy to model for advantage.

[exeteroborach]

I don't think using the bird's eye view is correct? The rules for measuring distances says to measure from the two closest points of the bases. Not the point of space above the models. By that logic a model standing against the bottom of  a 10 inch tall wall would be in engagement range/ unit coherency with the model standing at the top directly above it?

[piersonsmuppet]

Feb 5, 2023 4:29:53 GMT exeteroborach said:

I don't think using the bird's eye view is correct? The rules for measuring distances says to measure from the two closest points of the bases. Not the point of space above the models. By that logic a model standing against the bottom of  a 10 inch tall wall would be in engagement range/ unit coherency with the model standing at the top directly above it?

There is a 5" vertical limit from the base on the birds-eye view for engagement/coherency. If the vertical distance is >5", the model would be outside of engagement or coherency.


Edit: For clarification, most tournaments I've seen have treated the 1/2" of 1/2" as also having the 5" vertical distance that engagement has for smoothness of play. So, if a model is within 1/2" horizontal and 5" vertical of a friendly model that is within 1/2" and 5" vertical of an enemy model it can fight. I've never seen anyone measure an angular distance for the 1/2" rule (tedious as heck).

[exeteroborach]

Gotcha.
We discussed it. Came to the conclusion that the rules not mentioning the vertical limit for the 1/2" rule was an oversight. We agreed to use the imaginary cylinder method. Definitely makes it easier. 
Thanks for the input.