If I have a skimmer transport on a stick that is the hight of a infantry model, do enemies I shoot with the unit just disembarked get cover saves because of the intervening Transport?

does it block LOS to the models? If it does they get a cover save

Basically, true LOS. The only way to know is to take a look from the model's eye view.

If you get a full view to the majority of the target unit with the majority of the firing models there are no cover.

The air (and the base unless you are assaulting) under a skimmer is not part of the skimmer unit.

Thanks for the confirmation guys. This is pretty much how fish of fury works correct?

It doesn't work as well as it used to since the tactic mostly relied on the 4th edition rules of resistance of skimmers to assault and their total inabilty to block any LOS.

Its nowhere near as useful anymore since you're most likely to find the skimmer isn't quite high enough to clear the fire warrior's heads meaning they can't see in order to fire but enemies can see their knees and thus shoot back. While debatably you could put the vehicle on an even higher base but people might raise issue with your inability to deploy many models within 2" of the doors if they're that far off the ground...

However while the height of the vehicle may be equal to the firewarriors heads, often, if you take the models eye view, you'll still see the feet of the target on the other side of the devilfish and be able to fire at full effect.

off topic...but what does your pic say sazzlefrats??i can read the tournament part but not whats under it...

Sazzlefrats wrote:However while the height of the vehicle may be equal to the firewarriors heads, often, if you take the models eye view, you'll still see the feet of the target on the other side of the devilfish and be able to fire at full effect.

Yes, but seeing as the firewarriors disembarked their sight range would be shorter due to being closer. Actually I'll use a picture to show you what I mean...



The model closer to the vehicle can't see as far as the one further away, it means that you won't always see your enemies feet. As always of course the only way to really know what LOS is what is to take a look at the models (Yes, I know my diagram is obviously out of scale before anyone points it out - its only a demonstration of a possiblity not a scale diagram of what will always happen).

NOT YMTC but you can fix through modeling on slightly higher stands, if not sufficiently high now, or agree before game they can shoot and be shot at.

If you can't agree before game and you'r not in a tournament, then you might reconsider playing this individual as you're about two wate two hours of your life that you will never get back.

Frazzled wrote:If you can't agree before game and you'r not in a tournament, then you might reconsider playing this individual as you're about two wate two hours of your life that you will never get back.

So you're saying that if your opponent doesn't let you cheat, hes a bad person? I guess thats one way of looking at it, although I expect the person on the other side of the table would be more than happy not to waste two hours of his life playing against someone who can't deal with the fact they aren't playing 4th edition anymore...

I'm not advocating cheating, I'm just trying to decide if Valk of Fury with Stormies will be worth it come May, as it will be pointless if they get 4+ covers.

Considering the height of the Valkyrie base stands that i've seen so far, los shouldn't be a problem.

I don't know if its RAW but I always play it that when Firewarriors or whatever pop out the skimmer gives a 4+ cover save to the unit being shot at and also that any return fire occurs the tank provides those Firewarriors with a 4+ as well.

Oh, just a quick FYI, I don't play Tau I'm a Nid player. (So it only hurts me:-P)

Houserules are of little to no help when discussing rules.

At best they add confusion, at worst they screw everything up entirely.

Thank you for playing.

Gwar! wrote: I'm not advocating cheating, I'm just trying to decide if Valk of Fury with Stormies will be worth it come May, as it will be pointless if they get 4+ covers.

Given the height of the Valk flying base, you're going to need to Deep Strike out of the thing just to disembark - it stands way more than 2" off the ground.

Gwar! wrote: I'm not advocating cheating,

I'm not acusing you, I'm merely pointing out that Frazzle's option to throw a trantrum as a result of not getting his way in defiance of the rules is completely ridiclous.

I'm just trying to decide if Valk of Fury with Stormies will be worth it come May, as it will be pointless if they get 4+ covers.

One would imagine highly worth it, the valk has a stand that places it some 12" above the table so its not going to block LOS to anything, except possibly other valkeries (or amusingly you could park it infront of a titan's face in apocolypse... it wouldn't be able to see anything else!

Ah well then that's fine the

The thing is Rumours flying about say the Valk will actually become a skimmer, so wont have this 12" high stand anymore

"Use Modeling to Your Advantage!"

no its lame actually "Yeah, its kinda like that" is what it really says

saw54 wrote:off topic...but what does your pic say sazzlefrats??i can read the tournament part but not whats under it...

Well... I'm only trying to rapid fire anyways! Also remember that if you can deploy them about half an inch away from the vehicle and still get everyone within the 2". That extra 1/2" should get you the rapid fire range that you are looking for. If I do want to shoot across the board, obviously I'll do something different. Otherwise I totally understand what you mean with your diagram.

Hymirl wrote:

Sazzlefrats wrote:However while the height of the vehicle may be equal to the firewarriors heads, often, if you take the models eye view, you'll still see the feet of the target on the other side of the devilfish and be able to fire at full effect.

Yes, but seeing as the firewarriors disembarked their sight range would be shorter due to being closer. Actually I'll use a picture to show you what I mean...



The model closer to the vehicle can't see as far as the one further away, it means that you won't always see your enemies feet. As always of course the only way to really know what LOS is what is to take a look at the models (Yes, I know my diagram is obviously out of scale before anyone points it out - its only a demonstration of a possiblity not a scale diagram of what will always happen).

simple answer, stock up on the kneeling tau legs
make sure the unit is around 80% kneeling legs

i dont see the problem with it.

and if you want to "Use Modeling to Your Advantage!" I saw some great space marines on stilts so they could shoot over their razorback (made for a laugh i guess)

I'm surprised that no race have adopted to the staticness of modelhood and developed eyes on their feet.

I think that once you are comparing sightlines like the one in the diagram and talking about stocking up on kneeling legs, you have lost the necessary abstraction for wargaming.

Just assume that the hull is cover and the los is good underneath based on kneeling, etc. and move on. Think of the nitpicking arguments that trying to enforce a situation like the diagram above would cause.

This way, you don't have to worry about non standard skimmer bases, which lots of people have, either.

I have magnetized bases for my tau vehicles. I have a selection made up of both the long and short flying stems.

I fly the devilfish on the long ones. What is the point of having a skimmer troop transport that won't allow your troops a good line of sight underneath? Might as well be a Chimera?
WS2 firewarriors need all the help they can get. You don't want to be getting counter assaulted by an intact ork squad because you gave it a ton of cover saves!
Firewarrior model is fairly short, kneeling or otherwise (they are not known for large stature). Being within 2 inches of a hatch and seeing under the vehicle is not a problem. You only come unstuck when the target unit is standing on a piece of terrain that also gives it some height. When this occurs, invariably you are giving away cover saves and not all of the firewarriors will be shooting.

I fly the Hammerheads on the short versions. They then give cover to any units behind them and don't lose much in what can be seen from the weapon mounts for the purposes of firing.

Would anyone begrudge me playing to my armies strengths while trying to minimise the effects of it's weaknesses?

"Would anyone begrudge me playing to my armies strengths while trying to minimise the effects of it's weaknesses?"


GW 5th edition credo:

If you ain't imperial, you don't get it. If a xenos has something good make it better and give it to the imperials.

IMO LOS is LOS. When playing my tau and dumping out the back I found that the FW LOS was blocked by the vehicle and my enemy could see my legs and bases to shoot me. Granted the FW would get a cover save when being shot but your opponent does not need one as you really cant see them. The fix....Use the side ports to dump and pump!!

DAaddict wrote:"Would anyone begrudge me playing to my armies strengths while trying to minimise the effects of it's weaknesses?"


GW 5th edition credo:

If you ain't imperial, you don't get it. If a xenos has something good make it better and give it to the imperials.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Nice to see a fellow Wisconsinite on Dakka.

DAaddict wrote:"Would anyone begrudge me playing to my armies strengths while trying to minimise the effects of it's weaknesses?"


GW 5th edition credo:

If you ain't imperial, you don't get it. If a xenos has something good make it better and give it to the imperials.

I believe that is QQ moar?

No one would begrudge you because you play by the rules- they came with stands, you used the stands. LOS causes confusion because GW can't decide if they want to have an abstract ruleset or a very particular one. So you get situations like these. See also needing "true" LOS but no split fire.

Related question then, how do you disembark from a skimmer? If the stand is >2" can you not disembark to the ground? if not can you disembark to a building 4" high?
I can't remember if it was a rule this edition or not, about using bases that come with the model, but I understand the valk base is quite high.

Gestalt wrote:Related question then, how do you disembark from a skimmer? If the stand is >2" can you not disembark to the ground? if not can you disembark to a building 4" high?
I can't remember if it was a rule this edition or not, about using bases that come with the model, but I understand the valk base is quite high.

Well nowhere does it say the bases have to be 2", only the model (which by definition includes the base), so I would assume you measure from the top of the model to the access point. As for disembarking onto upper levels, thats a muddy subject that doesnt really have a hard and fast RaW answer.

The current Valk operates like a Flyer and so has the huge flyer base, but the new one will have a skimmer like base.

I thought the pics of the new plastic Valk had that big plastic base of a clear plastic cross.

Gestalt wrote:I thought the pics of the new plastic Valk had that big plastic base of a clear plastic cross.

yeah if someone could find a pic of this new base because I haven't actually seen it lol. I've just been told its gonna be a skimmer style base (and I assumed Skimmer hight, though I may be wrong)

From BoLS - who got it from Warseer.



and in use:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/SZhfXOsozsI/AAAAAAAAEF8/Ojnvhzl5pJg/s1600-h/valk-squadron.jpg

EDIT: Broken link - bleh.

Gwar! wrote:Ah well then that's fine the

The thing is Rumours flying about say the Valk will actually become a skimmer, so wont have this 12" high stand anymore

The new plastic models that have been displayed are all still on the 12" stands. So if thats all it comes with then thats what you get. I think they did this as not to crowd up the play area with them being as cheap as they are (in game points) and still rather large as a model.

EDIT: Picture posted. Doesnt look to be 12" but still rather high.

Mhmm yes I see that. I assume the Valk must have a Special Rule to permit disembarkation, because with a base like that under the standard rules it would be impossible.

....Wow the valks going to have a massive blind spot if it does come on a 12" stand (all weapon have a 45* vertical move ment). Any one standing with in 12" can't be shot at (unless they're on a building).

You need to do one of two things to sort all this out

1) Make your skimmers out of glass. I.e they now come with new advanced cloaking fields. You can have LOS yet you still have a 120ton VLAT ship in the way of incoming fire for a cover save. Glass may be difficult & problematic so perhaps clear plastic.

2) Shoot Over the skimmers. Low skimmer, tall models. Surely tall models will be a benifit to virtually everything else when it comes to LOS.

Kneeling/crouching tau sure are fine for a fish of fury but what happens when.. Ahh.. You can kneel behind a wall & shoot over it, gaining a cover save but not allowing one & likewise, withing 2" of the egde of area terrain you can still shoot out of it, not confering but getting a cover save. Why dont they treat vehicles this way? Would sort out Alot of problems & would not be broken. Tanks are killable (infact when they are destroyed they do count as terrain) and cost extra KP's and may destract from certain types of units or tactics.

There is a special rule to drop from the skimmer along its move, but I havent heard anything that changes normal transport vehicle rules.
Is it legal to change the base to be shorter/taller? Or the radius?

The rulebook says distances are measured to and from the hull, "with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points, and fire points, which all work as normal."
Measuring 2" from the access point doesn't quite reach the ground.

Gestalt wrote:There is a special rule to drop from the skimmer along its move, but I havent heard anything that changes normal transport vehicle rules.
Is it legal to change the base to be shorter/taller? Or the radius?

The rulebook says distances are measured to and from the hull, "with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points, and fire points, which all work as normal."
Measuring 2" from the access point doesn't quite reach the ground.

It's perfectly legal to change the base to whatever hight you want. However you cannot change the hight in game, nor can you remove the Flying base unless its immobilised.

And Special Rules > Rulebook, so without seeing the Valk entry (had a copy, don't have it now and cant remember it) and knowing if it has a special rule, using the Default base I doubt you will be able to re-embark.

Gwar! wrote:
... using the Default base I doubt you will be able to re-embark.

I have one thing to say..

Magnets

Tri wrote:....Wow the valks going to have a massive blind spot if it does come on a 12" stand (all weapon have a 45* vertical move ment). Any one standing with in 12" can't be shot at (unless they're on a building).

Just mount the weapons on at a 45 degree downward angle, then the 45 degrees of assumed vertical movement will be perfect.

Gwar! wrote:

Gestalt wrote:There is a special rule to drop from the skimmer along its move, but I havent heard anything that changes normal transport vehicle rules.
Is it legal to change the base to be shorter/taller? Or the radius?

The rulebook says distances are measured to and from the hull, "with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points, and fire points, which all work as normal."
Measuring 2" from the access point doesn't quite reach the ground.

It's perfectly legal to change the base to whatever hight you want. However you cannot change the hight in game, nor can you remove the Flying base unless its immobilised.

And Special Rules > Rulebook, so without seeing the Valk entry (had a copy, don't have it now and cant remember it) and knowing if it has a special rule, using the Default base I doubt you will be able to re-embark.

There's no special rule for re-rembarking although since it's perfectly acceptable for a valk to float in one spot like a helicopter I wouldn't be a pedant about my opponent's infantry shooting up into it. The special rule for deploying is that the troops inside can deepstrike at any point along the valk's path of travel for that turn.

I don't think you really shouls be changing the height of the stand though. you use the base provided with the model you bought stand and all, because I don't think the valkyrie was ever meant to be flying around at devilfish/falcon level.

Gwar! wrote:It's perfectly legal to change the base to whatever hight you want.....

And which rule is this one? Changing the size of models bases is against rule, there is no granted exception for height.

DAaddict wrote:"Would anyone begrudge me playing to my armies strengths while trying to minimise the effects of it's weaknesses?"


GW 5th edition credo:

If you ain't imperial, you don't get it. If a xenos has something good make it better and give it to the imperials.

So perfectly worded... I'd add something else to it also: If xenos have something good, find a way to make it bad.

Hymirl wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It's perfectly legal to change the base to whatever hight you want.....

And which rule is this one? Changing the size of models bases is against rule, there is no granted exception for height.

Where does it say that? I am looking at my rulebook and all it says is:

Page 3 wrote:Bases
Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game.

Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

I see no rule saying I cannot modify my bases however I want, however it does say (rather redundantly) that you need to clear it with your opponent. See my Sig for why it is redundant

That's very poignant, very true, and very clear... Finally, something offical in this thread that has a page number on it. Good call

Basically it comes down to

You can't change the base.

if you want to break the rules, and your opponent is okay with breaking the rules, then you are fine.

coredump wrote:Basically it comes down to

You can't change the base.

if you want to break the rules, and your opponent is okay with breaking the rules, then you are fine.

Again, this is not the case. You can change the base. Nowhere does it say you cannot. It says you may, but just clarify with your opponent (ya know like pretty much everything else in the game).

I quoted the relevant rule, so why do you insist on making up stuff?

The base size of models might certainly be an issue for tournaments as they often have regulations on that which go above and beyond the guidelines in the rulebook, but the relevant rule has already been quoted.

The "put them on the base they came with" argument has a couple of problems as well: I have a boat-load of old metal Deathwing terminators. They are still sold through direct sales, but they still come with 25 mm bases. Should I rebase them on 40mm bases to conform with the newer plastic marine terminators or "put them on the bases they came with?"

On the other hand : want to mount your grots on 40mm bases? Well, as far as GW is concerned - make them look pretty! And just make sure your opponent knows and is okay with it.

Modeling for advantage? Yep.
Is it a sportsman-like thing to do (assuming its done purely to gain an advantage in games)?: Probably not.
Is it against the rules?: Nope.

Gwar! wrote:Well nowhere does it say the bases have to be 2", only the model (which by definition includes the base), so I would assume you measure from the top of the model to the access point.

All measurement to a model with a base is made to the closest edge of its base (Rulebook, page 3)

The only time this changes is when measuring coherency in Ruins.


So yes, by RAW, a model would have problems disembarking from a skimmer on a flight stand that puts the access points more than 2 and a quarter inches off the table, unless you park it beside something tall that the models can climb out onto...

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well nowhere does it say the bases have to be 2", only the model (which by definition includes the base), so I would assume you measure from the top of the model to the access point.

All measurement to a model with a base is made to the closest edge of its base (Rulebook, page 3)

The only time this changes is when measuring coherency in Ruins.


So yes, by RAW, a model would have problems disembarking from a skimmer on a flight stand that puts the access points more than 2 and a quarter inches off the table, unless you park it beside something tall that the models can climb out onto...

So, any tau player who's devilish is on the taller Flying Stand has been cheating then?

And anyway, nowhere does it say we have to measure the actual diagonal distance (thats only for Shooting) so as long as its 2" in the horizontal, one could say it's "legal".

Gwar! wrote:And anyway, nowhere does it say we have to measure the actual diagonal distance (thats only for Shooting) so as long as its 2" in the horizontal, one could say it's "legal".

That is an interesting interpretation. I don't see where that is only for shooting either. It says you may embark or disembark within 2" of an access point. It would make for some interesting games when land raiders are disembarking units on the top floor of buildings. Or a valk disembarks a unit on the other side of an impassable wall.

Gestalt wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And anyway, nowhere does it say we have to measure the actual diagonal distance (thats only for Shooting) so as long as its 2" in the horizontal, one could say it's "legal".

That is an interesting interpretation. I don't see where that is only for shooting either. It says you may embark or disembark within 2" of an access point. It would make for some interesting games when land raiders are disembarking units on the top floor of buildings. Or a valk disembarks a unit on the other side of an impassable wall.

Quite Possible i would imagine.

Things like that are why GW need to lrn2write. If even the notion crosses the mind of a player (albeit utterly wrong, even I admit that) they haven't done a good job.

So, gluing the flight stand lying down on the base, and then the Valkyrie on top of that would be completely legal and okay?

But cutting the stand in half and gluing the Valk on top of that wouldn't?

People find some really strange things to complain about.

Gwar! wrote: So, any tau player who's devilish is on the taller Flying Stand has been cheating then?

If it results in a distance of more than 2 and a quarter inches, then yes, technically it would be impossible to disembark on flat ground.

And anyway, nowhere does it say we have to measure the actual diagonal distance

It says to measure to the closest edge of the base. That means measuring to the closest edge of the base, not measuring the corresponding horizontal distance.

Nowhere do the rules tell you to only measure on the horizontal plane. That's an idea that has no support from the rules, yet for some reason just keeps on coming back in rules discussions.


Measuring the distance between two points requires actually measuring the distance between the two points.

so as long as its 2" in the horizontal, one could say it's "legal".

One could say that... but wouldn't be able to find any support for it in the rules.



Having said that, measuring 2" horizontally is, from my experience, the way most people (including myself) actually do it.

glory wrote:So, gluing the flight stand lying down on the base, and then the Valkyrie on top of that would be completely legal and okay?
But cutting the stand in half and gluing the Valk on top of that wouldn't?

I wouldn't have a problem with people cutting down the base or using it normally. But I would have a problem with counting the cutdown model as 6" in the air, same as counting the model 6" in the air as 2" to the ground. As long as the altitude is consistent during the game its legal as far as I can tell.

glory wrote:So, gluing the flight stand lying down on the base, and then the Valkyrie on top of that would be completely legal and okay?

Ignoring any potential argument for the rules being written on the assumption that models are assembled correctly... Sure, go right ahead. You won't actually use it that way, at least not after the 40th person or so has taken one look at your army and pointed out that the valkyrie's base is assembled wrong...

People find some really strange things to complain about.

Who was complaining?

People were discussing the vagaries of GW's current basing rules. Nothing more.

insaniak wrote:One could say that... but wouldn't be able to find any support for it in the rules.

Having said that, measuring 2" horizontally is, from my experience, the way most people (including myself) actually do it.

yup, as do I. I made that point in jest, since it shows that GW cannot write clear rules to save their life, since you could get that meaning, even if its not backed up in the rules.

insaniak wrote:

glory wrote:So, gluing the flight stand lying down on the base, and then the Valkyrie on top of that would be completely legal and okay?

Ignoring any potential argument for the rules being written on the assumption that models are assembled correctly... Sure, go right ahead. You won't actually use it that way, at least not after the 40th person or so has taken one look at your army and pointed out that the valkyrie's base is assembled wrong...

To which I reply: The rules don't say anything about abnormal basing being disallowed, the rules say I have to inform you of it.

insaniak wrote:

glory wrote:
People find some really strange things to complain about

Who was complaining?

People were discussing the vagaries of GW's current basing rules. Nothing more.

I was referring to those 40 people who just pointed out that my base is assembled wrong. It was an extremely backwards way of commenting on the fact that the rules appear to work quite strangely when it comes to the Valkyrie model. I really should've clarified the sentence a bit more.

What sort of base does the FW Valk have, by the way? Will we have to buy massively expensive resin pieces to gan access to the "Weaker-antigraviton pattern" Valkyries that can float at altitudes below 10 metres?

Gwar! wrote:To which I reply: The rules don't say anything about abnormal basing being disallowed, the rules say I have to inform you of it.

I wasn't talking about the rules saying it wasn't allowed. I was talking about the fact that if you have a model assembled incorrectly, even just the smallest detail, people will invariably point it out.

glory wrote:I was referring to those 40 people who just pointed out that my base is assembled wrong.

They (or most of them) wouldn't be complaining... they would be being 'helpful'... ('Hey, did you realise that you have the flight stand assembled wrong?' ... 'Why is the flight stand assembled like that?' ... 'What's going on with that flight stand...?')

It was an extremely backwards way of commenting on the fact that the rules appear to work quite strangely when it comes to the Valkyrie model.

To be fair, we don't actually know how the rules work with the Valkyrie yet...

I thought the FW Valk had a huge flyer stick that was like 2 feet tall?

insaniak wrote:To be fair, we don't actually know how the rules work with the Valkyrie yet...

People who have seen the codex have not seen any special rules so far, besides deep striking out of it.

I read in a White Dwarf that crouching models are considered to be able to see over barricades or similar types of terrain.

Why could it not be the case that standing models are considered crouching when it is called for?

They also mentioned that modeling MC's crouching to take advantage of the 50% cover rule does not work.

Melee is not static nor should standing models or skimmers be considered static. As far as changing the height of a base goes,I wish people would use some imagination when considering how skimmers function. I also wish GW would FAQ this, because armies like Tau are hurting enough as it is.

Blackarandras wrote:I read in a White Dwarf that crouching models are considered to be able to see over barricades or similar types of terrain.

Why could it not be the case that standing models are considered crouching when it is called for?

They also mentioned that modeling MC's crouching to take advantage of the 50% cover rule does not work.

Melee is not static nor should standing models or skimmers be considered static. As far as changing the height of a base goes,I wish people would use some imagination when considering how skimmers function. I also wish GW would FAQ this, because armies like Tau are hurting enough as it is.

The problem is GW cant decide if they want an Abstract or Absolute rules system, and seem to flit between the two depending on what phase you are in.

Blackarandras wrote:I read in a White Dwarf that crouching models are considered to be able to see over barricades or similar types of terrain.

Which would be fine... if they actually included such a thing in the rules.

Why could it not be the case that standing models are considered crouching when it is called for?

Because both are incorrect. The rules for LOS work off the actual postition of the model.

They also mentioned that modeling MC's crouching to take advantage of the 50% cover rule does not work.

Again, not a part of the rules, which use the actual position of the model.

Modeling for advantage is frowned upon, and it can be argued that it's not allowed as the rules don't specifically allow conversions in the first place... but changing the positioning of the model does change its LOS profile.

I wish people would use some imagination when considering how skimmers function.

It's not a question of using imagination. GW have a ruleset that by and large revolves around the actual positioning of the models in use. Changing that adds in whole layers of complexity that simply aren't allowed for by the rules as they currently stand.

If you choose to add house rules allowing the models to change their height during the game, that's your choice, and just fine. But unless GW change their rules to reflect this more abstract style of play, don't expect everybody to automatically agree that your way is the way it should be played...

Both are not incorrect,that is from Jervis' mouth,one is at lest correct.

Modeling MC's crouching is of no advantage.

You are not penalized for modeling or basing artisically,but you must be reasonable and judge according to the standard model of that type.

Blackarandras wrote:Both are not incorrect,that is from Jervis' mouth,one is at lest correct.

Being something Jervis said in WD does not make it something that Allessio actually wrote in the rulebook...

Modeling MC's crouching is of no advantage.

It is if you're trying to hide it behind smaller obstacles than would be possible if it is standing up straight.

Again, the LOS rules use the actual profile of the model. That may or may not be the way that Jervis intended the LOS rules to work, but it is what's actually in the book, and the way LOS has worked for 5 editions of the game so far.

insaniak wrote:

Blackarandras wrote:Both are not incorrect,that is from Jervis' mouth,one is at lest correct.

Being something Jervis said in WD does not make it something that Allessio actually wrote in the rulebook...

Oh Emperors Bowels I'm Agreeing with insaniak, the End is Nigh!

But yes, Allessio wrote the rules. Unless we get it from his mouth on at least 4 verifiable video sources and in writing stamped with his blood, any comments on "rules as intended" have less than zero weight.

With that kind of logic then my Avatar and Wraith Lord are going to be lego men with pirate hats.

I know Jervis and WD are not authorities,but it makes sense.

Wait, no pirate hats that would make them to tall.

Blackarandras wrote:With that kind of logic then my Avatar and Wraith Lord are going to be lego men with pirate hats.

Well, you'll still have issues there... The rules only refer to 'the Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000' (page 3)... There are no rules allowing you to use anything else.

I know Jervis and WD are not authorities,but it makes sense.

From a certain point of view, and for a completely different ruleset, sure.

Given the way the 40K LOS rules are written, no, sorry, it makes no sense whatsoever to play that way. In a different game, where you weren't using the physical model as a reference point, then abstract poses are fine. But in a game that revolves around drawing LOS to an actual, physical model, using anything other than the actual, physical model just adds needless complication. You wind up with situations where you're drawing LOS to empty air where the model would be if you were using a completely different model... and that's guaranteed to cause more arguments than just using the model that you have on the table at the time.

I think you get my point about the lego men or at lest I hope so.

From a certain point of view one of the creators of this game made the above statements.

Abstract poses? Your the one that's pro kneeling MC's to take advantage of the rules.

Drawing lines of sight into empty air? Good thing your not a carpenter.

If you have a kneeling FW in a squad the whole squad should be able to draw(accurate)TLOS,as if they to were kneeling, without a problem.

Blackarandras wrote:I think you get my point about the lego men or at lest I hope so.

If your point was that you can come up with absurd ways to abuse a rule to show how silly it is, I did. The thing is, I'm not arguing that the rule can't be abused, or that LOS couldn't be handled better.

From a certain point of view one of the creators of this game made the above statements.

I would actually be curious to find out what it was he actually said, and the context behind it... I don't buy WD any more, so didn't see it.

Abstract poses? Your the one that's pro kneeling MC's to take advantage of the rules.

Where on earth do you get that idea?

I'm the one saying that rules work a particular way, and that modeling shouldn't be used for advantage. Nothing more.

Drawing lines of sight into empty air? Good thing your not a carpenter.

Should I be? In order to successfully play a miniatures wargame, I mean?

If you have a kneeling FW in a squad the whole squad should be able to draw(accurate)TLOS,as if they to were kneeling, without a problem.

And in a game that had rules to that effect, they would have LOS. Assuming that they satisfied all other conditions for LOS, of course.

But in Warhammer 40K, LOS is drawn on a model-by-model basis, and a given model only has LOS if the model actually has LOS.

I'm not claiming that's the best way to handle LOS... just the way the rules say to do it.

Ok then,I think we're actually on the same page,or close anyway.

GW doesn't sell a box of FW's or DA's all kneeling and I would hate to have to spend all that money just to pull off a legitimate Fish of Fury tactic.

They really have to FAQ the limits on conversions and TLOS for alot of reasons. Especially with all the cover saves.

I just think that if I can't pull off a good ol' FoF then you can't base your terminators on 1/4" rocks.

Also,I don't like the idea of putting my skimmers on higher stems,but I will until someone proves that I can't.

I also read that article about the kneeling and prone guardsmen. Basically JJ took the same stance he always does, and basically said you can 'count' him being able to see over the barricade in situations where you can't put the prone/kneeling model in place where he can see and shoot. But, basically if it can shoot, he can be shoot at also.

He also mentioned the same thing that is in the RB about models on large/scenic bases and/or in heroic poses. But, I think I may have missed the one about the monstrous creatures kneeling to take advantage thing though. But, I can see this as being along the same lines as the prone/kneeling guardsmen.

Which is great that JJ thinks the game should have certain rules.

But since GW did *not* write the rules that way... it is kind of moot. Perhaps the other designers disagree with him, perhaps he was stating his house rules, perhaps.... whatever.

the rules are clear. If you drop your FW behind your devilfish, and they can't see underneath it, they can't shoot. They don't get to 'pretend' that they are kneeling.

I've got some guard heavy weapon teams modelled in prone and crouching positions. Here are some pics before they were painted:


Most people think they are pretty neat little conversions but sometimes when I've got these guys deployed in ruins or behind barriers they have no LOS to anything at all. Everyone I've played with has no problem with them being able to shoot over obstructions in these situations (of course they can also recieve return fire too). However, saying an entire squad is prone or kneeling just to be able to shoot under something is a little gamey in my mind (I'm not really sure why either, it's basically the same thing).

Also, I think it's asumed that skimmers decend low to the ground to discharge their troops and then return to what ever altitude they happened to be modelled on. So, extended flying bases should pose no problem when it comes to disembarking. Note that the Valk is different because the fluff is that the troops actually bail out of the vehicle when it is still at high altitude and decend to ground with the aid of grav chutes.

By that logic, the caption of the picture on the last page of the daemon codex that says "No mortal can stand against daemons of the warp" would indicate that daemons can't lose ever. Going slightly off-topic, does it bug anyone else when a player uses skimmers without their appropriate base? I get there's the potential for damage, but it just annoys the crap outta me when people try to make up rules regarding them. I always just assume they're on a flight base even if they're not.

Well at the club I run we have a "Club" Flying base that people can use to determine LOS if people have models that are meant to be on one but aren't.

I understand peoples point about it not being written in the BRB,but lets consider some other rules that require some imagination.

On page 14 it says,"models may move through walls, closed doors and windows,and all sort of similarly solid obstacles."

Then it goes on to say,"This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows,using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on.

So a squad bashes it's way through a solid wall,but there's no hole in it place,and they can't be shot at if completely on the other side. Not exactly written,but makes sense or that's the way it's played.

Jet packs or Jump Infantry are in some ruins,out of LOS from the enemy,and want to JSJ or just jump. Does this mean that you measure their movements on a vertical plan and therefore they will never be allowed to jump over things. Takes a little imagination.

With FW's and TLOS underneath a skimmer it is no stretch or even really a house rule in my opinion for them to shoot under their skimmer. You have FW's modeled crouching that can see perfectly fine under the skimmer. Should you have to buy multiple box sets to make at lest one squad that can FoF?I don't think so. What about the pathfinder model with the rail rifle that's lying on the ground,can he not shot over barricades?

I am the type of player that likes to abide by the rules,but I don't think this is some stretch or cheap niche.

Declaring whats what in the beginning of the game is not house rules unless it goes outside of the RB,which I don't think that this does.

That's a good point, you do need imagination to make this game work. It is a fantasy game afterall. But @ cannerus' point, it really does annoy me. I know it takes some imagination, but I feel like when people change bases SPECIFICALLY to gain an advantage it's just a little south of good gamesmanship.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be imaginative, but to me when I see someone spending lots of money and putting something together that gains them an advantage that other people don't have without having to spend a ton more money that is a bit irksome.

Well, lets not kid ourselves. Those who have the most money will ALWAYS have an advantage in any hobby you care to think of.

In Magic, more money means they can afford the better cards.
In Airsoft, better equipment.
In D&D, I have more books than you!

And so on and so forth. Doesn't make it sporting though.

Well I'm not debating whether or not it will happen, because you're right... It always will. Those who have the money have the power. Unfortunately that's the way it'll always be I think as long as people around. I guess it all comes back to the companies being fair. And unfortunately, those are the guys with the money... We're screwed either way!!!

Sorry, but they don't work that way.

Blackarandras wrote:I understand peoples point about it not being written in the BRB,but lets consider some other rules that require some imagination.

On page 14 it says,"models may move through walls, closed doors and windows,and all sort of similarly solid obstacles."

Then it goes on to say,"This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows,using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on.
So a squad bashes it's way through a solid wall,but there's no hole in it place,and they can't be shot at if completely on the other side. Not exactly written,but makes sense or that's the way it's played.

That is an optional rule. The other option is to play they can only go through 'openings' If you choose to play the former, and don't want to 'modify' the terrain, yes you must use your imagination.

Jet packs or Jump Infantry are in some ruins,out of LOS from the enemy,and want to JSJ or just jump. Does this mean that you measure their movements on a vertical plan and therefore they will never be allowed to jump over things. Takes a little imagination.

Nope. Rules work just as written. it says they can move over terrain freely. thus you don't have to worry about how high it is.

With FW's and TLOS underneath a skimmer it is no stretch or even really a house rule in my opinion for them to shoot under their skimmer. You have FW's modeled crouching that can see perfectly fine under the skimmer. Should you have to buy multiple box sets to make at lest one squad that can FoF?I don't think so. What about the pathfinder model with the rail rifle that's lying on the ground,can he not shot over barricades?

Not sure why you keep asking these questions. the rules are quite clearly written. You can shoot what the model can 'see'. If it is prone, then it can see less. If it is standing, it probably won't be able to shoot under a skimmer. Pretty simple actually.
OTOH, I can't shoot at your stealers and say "If they were standing up straight, I would be able to see them"

We are playing a game with little army men. Why not get the benefit of doing that? If the little army man can see, he can shoot. If you can't see the little army man, then you can't shoot at him. And thus I can to position my little army men so they can see, or so that others can't see me.
Otherwise, I could just use cardboard chits.

I am the type of player that likes to abide by the rules,but I don't think this is some stretch or cheap niche.

Declaring whats what in the beginning of the game is not house rules unless it goes outside of the RB,which I don't think that this does.

I won't comment if it is a stretch, or cheap niche. But it is *clearly* a house rule. There is *nothing* in the (rather extensive) LoS rules that say you can pretend the model is standing up, or kneeling down, or if the target is doing likewise.

coredump,you didn't comprehend my angle according to your comments.

Saying that this is a house rule is the same as saying that defining terrain pieces at the beginning of a game is a house rule.

Your answer to my jet pack statement shows you really didn't understand what I meant.

If you think the rules are so cut and dry why do you think there's a debate?

We play a little army men game that tries to simulate reality.

There has always been a problem with people thinking that their interpretation of written word is the correct one,myself included,look at the Bible.

The fact is, people have different views on EVERYTHING. No two people will ever fully agree on more than a single sentence. As your statement about the Bible clearly states. As a Lutheran/Calvanist I have my interpretation of Scripture, Catholics have theirs, Mormons have something completely different, JW's have their own, etc etc. We're all different and I think it just comes down to people respecting others' views and getting someone who's non-partial to be an intermediary.

I'm an atheist donkey-cave, I'm about as impartial as they come.

And I declare Fridays will be Miniskirt Day!

yeah this arguments kinda run aground now hasn't it?

EDIT: Emperors bowels that is the most sidesplitting use of a profanity filter I have ever seen! I'm stealing that one.

I must say that I am fairly surprised by the answers in this thread.

I would have assumed that you simply cannot shoot under a skimmer. I argue it is a slippery slope to open that option.

If you allow shooting under "flying" units, do you allow flamer templates? What about those tricky weapons that hit everything in a straight line from the firer; do flying units rise above the danger?

Oh yeah, and I would also like to address pretending to kneel behind other units in order to get LOS. Nope, only units within a squad are cohesive enough to do this, that is why members of one's own squad don't impede LOS but also why you cannot fire through other friendly units. Funny, this is yet another argument why you should not be able to have LOS under flying units.

Deuce11 wrote:I must say that I am fairly surprised by the answers in this thread.

I would have assumed that you simply cannot shoot under a skimmer. I argue it is a slippery slope to open that option.

If you allow shooting under "flying" units, do you allow flamer templates? What about those tricky weapons that hit everything in a straight line from the firer; do flying units rise above the danger?

In both of your examples there, you could say "Oh, I fired it when the skimmer was low" or "The shot was fired when the skimmer was low" while I could just as easily say "They deployed and have to shoot the enemy, the pilot is hardly gonna hug the ground blowing raspberries at the troops outside before getting shot to bits by the enemy". The easiest was to avoid any arguments is to just model the damn skimmer at the right hight to allow the tactic to work.

GWAR, you wrote "The easiest was to avoid any arguments is to just model the damn skimmer at the right hight to allow the tactic to work."

GWAR, I usually defer to your opinions. They are well thought out and most often a strong interpretation of the RAW. But I must disagree with you on this one.

GW openly promotes modeling in 5th Ed., and thus is a policy worth supporting. The easiest way is a bright line rule, no shooting under flying units.

GW Also says you can ignore any rule you want at any time, so long as you both agree.

They also say that you always use TLoS under all circumstances, down to individual trees in area terrain blocking LoS.

Following the strict RaW, any models that have their View blocked by their skimmer transport, may not fire.

Of course, because of the small nature of the table, and the fact you look from behind the model, one can debate of they can see or not, hence my original question in the OP.

Having read through the well thought out replies in this thread (and admittedly a few rather less thought out ones) I have come to the decision that it would just save time and effort to just model the skimmer in a manner that I could deploy and then still be able to draw LoS.

Thank you for the compliment though. Nice to know some people still like advocating the Playing of Warhammer 40k and not Househammer 40k

Now, here's something you you all. Lets say I have a skimmer transport, on one of those flying bases that have the ball joint at the top, that allow the skimmer to "bank and pitch".
Do you guys think, under RaW, one could have the transport modelled high enough so the unit could draw clear line of sight under it, and therefore move the transport the 6" or whatever, and bank the tailend back, so that the access points would then be in a legal position, deploy the unit, then return the transport to a flat level. I cannot find anything that would suggest doing so (returning the model to a flat level) counts as movement at all, and would therefore be allowed, even though it severely modifies LoS corridors?

Gwar! wrote:GW Also says you can ignore any rule you want at any time, so long as you both agree.

They also say that you always use TLoS under all circumstances, down to individual trees in area terrain blocking LoS.

Following the strict RaW, any models that have their View blocked by their skimmer transport, may not fire.

Of course, because of the small nature of the table, and the fact you look from behind the model, one can debate of they can see or not, hence my original question in the OP.

Having read through the well thought out replies in this thread (and admittedly a few rather less thought out ones) I have come to the decision that it would just save time and effort to just model the skimmer in a manner that I could deploy and then still be able to draw LoS.

Thank you for the compliment though. Nice to know some people still like advocating the Playing of Warhammer 40k and not Househammer 40k

Now, here's something you you all. Lets say I have a skimmer transport, on one of those flying bases that have the ball joint at the top, that allow the skimmer to "bank and pitch".
Do you guys think, under RaW, one could have the transport modelled high enough so the unit could draw clear line of sight under it, and therefore move the transport the 6" or whatever, and bank the tailend back, so that the access points would then be in a legal position, deploy the unit, then return the transport to a flat level. I cannot find anything that would suggest doing so (returning the model to a flat level) counts as movement at all, and would therefore be allowed, even though it severely modifies LoS corridors?

I would count that as movement with all restrictions and penalty involved ... but I would happily let you move your skimmer so it could deploy troops (exception would be the dark eldar with scaling nets move deploy and then finish moving)

Gwar! wrote:Now, here's something you you all. Lets say I have a skimmer transport, on one of those flying bases that have the ball joint at the top, that allow the skimmer to "bank and pitch".
Do you guys think, under RaW, one could have the transport modelled high enough so the unit could draw clear line of sight under it, and therefore move the transport the 6" or whatever, and bank the tailend back, so that the access points would then be in a legal position, deploy the unit, then return the transport to a flat level. I cannot find anything that would suggest doing so (returning the model to a flat level) counts as movement at all, and would therefore be allowed, even though it severely modifies LoS corridors?

Even better, bank it to one side, climb out that side's hatch, then bank it back the otherway so your models can draw head to shin LOS but the enemy can't see them. As far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want with banking your skimmer as long as it comes with one of the ball joint flying stands.

I would simply like to retract any statements I made that contradict the rules permitting a player to fire "through or past" a friendly unity as long as appropriate cover saves are afforded the targeted unit. I was thinking oooolllddd rules. Sorry all