I'm sure this has been answered somewhere but it came up in a game today and I cannot seem to find a definite answer. I was playing today against an Imperial Guard player running Vendettas and had range to his wing with my Long Fangs. He claimed the wing was not hull and so I did not have range to shoot, and a discussion followed where neither of us could point out any specific source that stated what exactly counts as hull. This also mattered because he moved the wings and tail over difficult terrain several times without testing for Dangerous Terrain.

I seem to remember this having been answered, and clearly stating that wings and tail are hull, but I can find nowhere that clearly defines what counts as "Hull" on vehicles other than the rulebook, which only mentions fire points and weapon mountings/turrets as being the point of origin for measuring firing range as opposed to "Hull". Can anyone point out an FAQ or section in a rulebook/codex that covers this? I've checked the Rulebook FAQ and Imperial Guard FAQ and have not found it, but I could be missing something.

Thanks!

I see it this way, whatever is not weapons or banners etc are hull. meaning tail, wings, landing gear, top exhaust port, etc, all hull.

However, only if skimmers are IN terrain do they need to test, hovering above it has no detrimental effects.

FOr "in" terrain you also count above, DR - given you ignore the base for nearly all purposes, you would, given a big enough stand (even the tall one) be able to claim a lot of skimmers are not in terrain, even when parked right in the middle.

Anything that is not excluded (decorative elements, weapons) is the hull - it is defined by saying what ISNT hull; everything else is.

And if they try to claim the wings arent hull, despite being a) not decoarative themselves and b) having non-decorative elements on them (weapon mounts) then they are attempting to cheat, strictly.

Think about it, if you shot a planes wings or engin its going to go down just as fast as if you shot its fusilage.

I agree that the wing should definitely count as part of the hull.

You'd really be surprised at the debates that went on in a few threads dealing with this very subject a year or so ago.

Planes usually have fuel in their wings, so it is kind of the best part to shoot anyways...

I agree with everyone in this thread but I think the problem that Aldarionn is trying to solve is WHERE does it outline what counts as hull?

We all know TFG that will argue till the sun goes down if it isn't outlined in the rules somewhere. Has GW ever FAQ'ed what counts as hull for the "flyer" models and whether tails and wings over dangerous terrain require them to check?

It outlines it by telling you what DOES NOT count as hull

Simple subtraction - find out what isnt hull on a vehicle, that tells you what IS hull.

Yeah but the way it's written is not overly clear and is almost a side note, they use etc in when listing what doesn't count, which doesn't help and leaves a window for TFG to add "wings" to the etc part of the list.

It's also unclear what counts as "in" terrain for the flyers since they use their base for some things and the actual model for others. GW has clarified a lot of it, I wish they would clarify this too.

No, reread the skimmer rules. You ignore the base for *everything* except assaults.

So, you dont use the base to determine if you are in terrain - you use the hull.

Simple.

They put an "etc" in there under "decorative elements". Is a wing a "decorative element" using common Engish parlance? Id *love* to see a plane where the wings are a nice to have, but not essential.

Anyone can argue anything, of course. However when you point out that if he ignores the wings he cannot fire (decorative elements are not weapons...) 2 of 3 lascannon, they may change their minds.

FOR CLARITY, THE BELOW QUOTED SECTION IS A HOUSE RULE FOR THE GW 2011 THRONE OF SKULLS TOURNAMENT IN LAS VEGAS. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RULE ANYWHERE ELSE.

Throne of Skulls 2011 US clarifications wrote:How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...e=true&start=2

I think the entire thing would count as the hull personally. As many people said, wings typically have at least 2 fuel bladders in each, plus if someone shoots out your vertical/horizontal stab you'd have a very very very rough landing lol.... sadly though theres no reference because fliers didn't come out til a while into 5th

I play Blood Angels and count Wings as the hull. But I did have a guy in agame tell me that he could measure range to shot me using my wings, but my preist inside could not use the wings to measure his effects.

As far as Terrain, I have a hard time taking a dangerous terrain test because my wings are over a rock formation so small my marines can barely get 50% cover from, and the wing is a foot above it.

I would measure effects like priest stuff from the passenger compartment, seeing as how that is where the priest it. It is just like how you measure range from the lascannon on the wing for the lascannon and from the auto cannon on the nose for the auto cannon.

The priest isn't in the wing, so it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to measure from it for his effects.

-cgmckenzie

maaksel - please dont post a FAQ for a local tournament run by GW events as if it actually mattered - or at leasty put some context to it. Otherwise you're being rather disingenuous.

You measure to / from the hull for embarked units, no exceptions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You measure to / from the hull for embarked units, no exceptions.

Confused... Are you saying you use the wings to measure effects?

yes, as wings are a part of the hull

Just making sure.

I could have sworn there was precedent somewhere that only triggered DT if the base was in terrain, and allowed models to basically be "under" the Valks/Vends. Anyone know where this might have come from? I'ma go look for references.

I've always read the rules to be that as long as the base doesn't land on top of another model, you can place it. It is there to keep people from landing a landspeeder on top of a land raider and riding into battle. Any over hanging bits can have troops under them.

That said, terrain still affects the over hanging bits. Sorta stupid but that's what happens every now and then.

I personally believe skimmers shouldn't be effected by terrain unless embarking/disembarking, the only time they will really ever get low enough to the ground to matter.

-cgmckenzie

I'd say that wings and tails count (as a rocket taking the wing of in genna hurt) but weapons and banners and flashy bits do not.

That's how we'd play it, if any of us had those flying vehicles.

Models can be under the vehicle, no problem. If enemy they need to have bases more than 1" away.

Weapon mounts can also be added to the list of target-able things.

Weapon mounts(turrets and sponsons mainly) count but the weapon itself doesn't. Splitting hairs but an important distinction in a thread like this.

-cgmckenzie

The hull is every part of the model except weapons and decorative elements.

jbunny wrote: I play Blood Angels and count Wings as the hull. But I did have a guy in agame tell me that he could measure range to shot me using my wings, but my preist inside could not use the wings to measure his effects.

I play GK's so I use the Shrouding to cover all my Ravens. I tell all my opponents that I will be measuring from the wings for the effect. But with that said they may also shoot them if they see wings. It goes both ways.

Yup. Has to be consistent. jbunny's opponent was not playing fair.

The real grey area here stems from the fact that the rules don't specify exactly what it means for a vehicle to be 'in' terrain.

In the case of non-skimmers there is no question when a vehicle is actually in terrain because if the vehicle ends its move in terrain (or moves through it) the model is effectively 'touching' the terrain piece.

With a skimmer, and especially the flyer type skimmers you have a real grey area because the 'hull' of the model is vertically far off the table and potentially far above where the terrain below it actually is.

That's why, for example, a model can move underneath a Valkyrie, because doing so doesn't put its base within 1" of the Valkyrie's hull (as the hull is so high up).

But again, when it comes to terrain, we aren't given a frame of reference to measure from like we are with models (measure from base/hull).

Therefore, it is an entirely reasonable interpretation to say that for difficult terrain tests only if the actual base is in/on the terrain does the vehicle count as being in/on the terrain. As if the base is outside of terrain but, parts of the skimmer are over the terrain, it could be said that the model is actually ABOVE the terrain instead of being IN it.


This is, of course, a completely subjective interpretation, but frankly so is assuming that a skimmer counts as being IN terrain when its hull is OVER that terrain.

Well, per the rulebook if any part of a skimmers hull is vertically over terrain, it counts as being in terrain and must roll the test. That said, the rulebook was written before these models existed in a codex, and so GW likely did not consider them when writing the skimmer rules. I think due to the height of the flight stand and the size of the model, it's fair and reasonable from a balance standpoint to only count it in terrain if the base is in terrain, or the model just becomes unwieldy.**

But by that same note, I would call it fair to measure all distances to any part of the model that is not decorative, and wings/tails are definitely not decorative. Try flying a plane without wings or a tail and see how well it maintains stability or lift. This goes both ways. All distances should be measured to and from any part of the hull, which should include the wings. I think nosferatu1001's explanation is the best so far. Whatever is not listed as an exception is therefore considered hull, and while this creates a grey area for some people to argue to death due to the word "etc...", it's the cleanest description I can find.

**I know fluff and rules do not coincide, and should not be used to justify each other, but in this case I want to point out that fliers like a Valkyrie and Stormraven use jets on the wings and fuselage of the vehicle to hover in place. They are clearly modeled on both vehicles, and are used for stabilization during flight, and hovering in place similar to a Harrier jet. If a flying vehicle using jets in this manner flies over uneven terrain at a low altitude, the variation in downward thrust created by the uneven ground can destabilize the vehicle in flight and cause it to lose lift. Several Harriers have crashed because the pilot did not gain enough altitude before moving forward off the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Basically, my point is that it makes sense for a skimmer like a Valkyrie/Vendetta/Stormraven to have to suffer a dangerous terrain test like any other skimmer, when any part of the hull is over any difficult terrain, but it's unrealistic to enforce it in a game setting that demands about 25-30% terrain coverage.

Aldarionn wrote:Well, per the rulebook if any part of a skimmers hull is vertically over terrain, it counts as being in terrain and must roll the test.

Is there a reference for this?

There isn't. Yak summed up the issue perfectly and it's the reason I really wish GW would just create a "flyer" vehicle type and outline all of these types of things.

This is all I was arguing really in the other thread. Models can go under the wings just fine but terrain cannot haha, apparently somewhere along the line that rock down there jumped up and hit the pilot causing him to immobolize the vehicle lol. Then if models were under the wings they get smashed.

This is why I liked 3rd ed where Skimmers (pre flyiers) had the option to be either above the terrain and give LOS to everyone, or in the terrain, and take test and not provide LOS.

Tk, I totally understand where you are coming from there; it makes sense that if the terrain is smacking the wing then my guardsman's helmet will too. Alas, it is not written that way in the book, allowing for you to have models under the wings and such without any ill effects like getting sucked through a jet turbine.

The simplest way to answer this whole problem is as follows:
that everything that isn't decorative is hull

if any hull if over terrain, it must take a terrain test

if the base is flat on the playing surface, the area under the wings allow for movement of troops.

The rules are silly and arbitrary, clearly being written for things like land speeders and tau hover tanks, but they are all we have until GW brings out flyers. Until then, just deal with the limitations of the rules OR use a different unit that is unambiguous.

FOOTSLOGGERS...AWAY!!!!!!

-cgmckenzie

If the wings count as part of the hull, then I can abuse my vendetta to contest objectives.

SonsofVulkan wrote:If the wings count as part of the hull, then I can abuse my vendetta to contest objectives.

No, because you measure objective contesting to the base. That is specifically stated in the FAQ.

-cgmckenzie

maaksel wrote:FOR CLARITY, THE BELOW QUOTED SECTION IS A HOUSE RULE FOR THE GW 2011 THRONE OF SKULLS TOURNAMENT IN LAS VEGAS. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RULE ANYWHERE ELSE.

Throne of Skulls 2011 US clarifications wrote:How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...e=true&start=2

Good stuff.

SonsofVulkan wrote:If the wings count as part of the hull, then I can abuse my vendetta to contest objectives.

Read the FAQ

maaksel wrote:FOR CLARITY, THE BELOW QUOTED SECTION IS A HOUSE RULE FOR THE GW 2011 THRONE OF SKULLS TOURNAMENT IN LAS VEGAS. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RULE ANYWHERE ELSE.

Throne of Skulls 2011 US clarifications wrote:How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...e=true&start=2

Sold. If it's good enough for GW's tournament it's good enough for me. Now if they would only add it to the Rulebook FAQ we could all go home happy.

That makes me happy, seeing as how I am getting a pair of vendettas this week!!

Not how RAW have it working, but if GW says to do it this way when they are judging, then by god lets do it that way. Hopefully the update for the FAQ comes along soon to make it doctrine.

-cgmckenzie

ps-yes, I know this still isn't RAW legal until the come out with flyers, and frankly don't care. We all now know what it is RAW but this makes more sense.

"GW" doesn't say to do it that way. One dude, the head rules judge for ONE tournament, says he's ruling it that way at that single event.

If GW wants to change the rules to work that way, they can add it to the FAQ.

Mannahnin wrote:"GW" doesn't say to do it that way. One dude, the head rules judge for ONE tournament, says he's ruling it that way at that single event.

If GW wants to change the rules to work that way, they can add it to the FAQ.

It's a GW tourney(a rather large one I think but I may be wrong) and therefor sets a precedent for future official events to rule similarly. It's a step towards an official FAQ change but still not quite there. Strictly following RAW, the judge is wrong but I highly doubt GW will raise a stink about it.

Who knows, when the Summer of Fliers finally happens, this entire thing might be a moot point.

-cgmckenzie

And if it was totally counter to GW Studio's intent/plans they'd tell him not to do it that way. Like I said, if it's good enough for their tournament it's good enough for me to play everyday games.

Besides, it so damned much more reasonable than having to take a test because the wing tip of my orbit capable flyer is just slightly over a barbed wire fence. The only roll of 1 that ever made me consider quitting a game on turn 1. But my opponent was such a smug twerp about it I had to stick it out and table his blue, upside down U covered, behind.

No, if the studio gave a damn about a single event they might ask him not to, however they have no official rules presence.

It gives absolutely no indication whatsoever how the studio will rule. None

Sanguinary Dan wrote:And if it was totally counter to GW Studio's intent/plans they'd tell him not to do it that way. Like I said, if it's good enough for their tournament it's good enough for me to play everyday games.

That, I can tell you from experience is VERY false. The design team typically does not involve themselves with any FAQs the event department puts out for their grand tournaments. There have been many, many, many cases where rulings in a GW GT FAQ have been completely the opposite to what the official ruling turns out to be in the real studio FAQ.

Besides, the studio has ruled on how to play the Vendetta/Valkyrie and that is ONLY in the case of embarking/disembarking and capturing objectives are ranges measured from the base. In all other cases range is measured to/from the vehicle's hull, which is completely counter to what the events department has ruled.

But again, that still doesn't definitely prove that a Valkyrie/Vendetta whose wings are OVER terrain counts as being IN/ON the terrain. That fully rests on how you interpret the concept of what it means to be in or on a piece of terrain as opposed to over it.

yakface wrote:

Sanguinary Dan wrote:And if it was totally counter to GW Studio's intent/plans they'd tell him not to do it that way. Like I said, if it's good enough for their tournament it's good enough for me to play everyday games.

That, I can tell you from experience is VERY false. The design team typically does not involve themselves with any FAQs the event department puts out for their grand tournaments. There have been many, many, many cases where rulings in a GW GT FAQ have been completely the opposite to what the official ruling turns out to be in the real studio FAQ.

Exactly right. The UK GT used to have a whole house rules document above and beyond the FAQ, and which was often contradicted later by the official FAQ rulings on various matters.

As Yak said, the studio design guys genuinely don't pay attention to or take part in the house rulings/clarifications even for GW tournaments.

yakface wrote:[Besides, the studio has ruled on how to play the Vendetta/Valkyrie and that is ONLY in the case of embarking/disembarking and capturing objectives are ranges measured from the base. In all other cases range is measured to/from the vehicle's hull, which is completely counter to what the events department has ruled.

But again, that still doesn't definitely prove that a Valkyrie/Vendetta whose wings are OVER terrain counts as being IN/ON the terrain. That fully rests on how you interpret the concept of what it means to be in or on a piece of terrain as opposed to over it.

True enough. I guess, speaking as someone who played Eldar primarily for some years, and played against Tau and Eldar for a decade or more, I don't see any particular reason for Valks/Vends/SRs to get a more generous ruling than Falcons and Wave Serpents, Pirhanas and Devilfish and Hammerheads, etc. In all of these cases the skimmer's base can MUCH more easily fit into various spaces/around terrain than the full model can.

If GW wants to rule that V/V/SRs just use the base for Difficult Terrain, then I would hope all skimmers would get the same ruling, not just Imperial players.

Mannahnin wrote:If GW wants to rule that V/V/SRs just use the base for Difficult Terrain, then I would hope all skimmers would get the same ruling, not just Imperial players.

I think that's perfectly reasonable. As long as they put all those other Skimmers on the same height flying base.

The 'fliers' operate just like skimmers until rules stating otherwise are enacted. Rumor mill being what it is, there is a possibility of this happening in a month or so, but take that with a grain of salt.

The tourney ruling isn't a definitive sign that this is how they will rule in the future, but it does provide some possible precedent for what ever rule they decide to use. It is also entirely possible that they are using the tourney to play test how various aspects of upcoming rule changes might work. Or that the TO will never be allowed to make rule decisions again...

-cgmckenzie

Matters now, Just received back word from the TO of the GT I am attending. "For the Valk/Vend question, use the base (so no stupid difficult terrain checks, and yes it can hang off the table a little)"

As long as I can play it both locally and in the GT's as such than i could really care less how some people interpret it.

Rivers often count as dangerous or difficult terrain. Seems kind of odd too that if the model or stand lands in a river then you have to take a test. The river is just as deadly as an open plain to a skimmer, if anything safer to crash land into as we seen.

We normally measure from the base, cause the skimmer is flying, the few inches between the hull and the base account for the vertical distance. At least for these skimmers, smaller skimmers like defkoptas we use the model.

TK - please, show us your "interpretation", with some rules?

You've yet to show any....

A number of other people have though Nos, you just disagree our interpretation, which is fine.

Like I said ages ago, just ask the TO when you get to a tournament about how they will handle it to avoid any surprises. If you don't like how they handle it either deal with it or don't play, don't whine to the TO, they can run their tournament how they want.

Simple, easy, and the best way to address this issue until or if, GW FAQ's it.

No, noone has provided ANY rules backing for the measurement question - none. Mainly because there arent any rules that can be shown - a Valk / SR follows all the rules for normal vehicles, with the listed exceptions, and no more.

It's that simple.

invisiblade wrote:Rivers often count as dangerous or difficult terrain. Seems kind of odd too that if the model or stand lands in a river then you have to take a test. The river is just as deadly as an open plain to a skimmer, if anything safer to crash land into as we seen.

We normally measure from the base, cause the skimmer is flying, the few inches between the hull and the base account for the vertical distance. At least for these skimmers, smaller skimmers like defkoptas we use the model.

Deffkoptas aren't skimmers. That said, spraying water, turbulent winds above whater or a salmon jumping into your star engine do make it more dangerous. We don't know how skimmers work, and a vendetta might as well have the same defect as the harrier in the video I posted, and simply fall out of the sky when drawing air containing too much water. Also real life isn't the same as rules.

vonjankmon wrote:A number of other people have though Nos, you just disagree our interpretation, which is fine.

Like I said ages ago, just ask the TO when you get to a tournament about how they will handle it to avoid any surprises. If you don't like how they handle it either deal with it or don't play, don't whine to the TO, they can run their tournament how they want.

Simple, easy, and the best way to address this issue until or if, GW FAQ's it.

The "interpretation" isn't really one, but plain old stupid RAW. If you disagree with the RAW, you are free to change rules, as well as any TO is. But don't act like you are playing by the written rules. Also see Tenets of You Make Da Call #4.

Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Measurement - no argument possible, unless you simply make rules up

Terrain - the method for determining cover is shown as 2D. In is synonymous with above

vonjankmon wrote:Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Just pick a battlewagon(or any random box shaped vehicle without funky rules) instead of a vendetta. You could really argue that a battlewagon can never really be IN terrain, unless you pick the piece of terrain up off the table and pretend the vehicle is inside a wall/tree/rock. Usually the vehicles is on top(above) the terrain, just like the vendetta, and it's really hard to believe that a battlewagon or a landraider would destroy one of their tracks(which usually deflect dedicated anti-tank fire and artillery with ease) in a crater or the mentioned river crossing. However, that's the rules, and they don't change if you put that exact vehicle on a flying stand. Solid pieces of terrain are defined no further than by their actual volume, but area terrain is defined by a border. If your skimmer crosses that border, it's inside terrain, no matter how far up.

Jidmah wrote:

vonjankmon wrote:Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Just pick a battlewagon(or any random box shaped vehicle without funky rules) instead of a vendetta. You could really argue that a battlewagon can never really be IN terrain, unless you pick the piece of terrain up off the table and pretend the vehicle is inside a wall/tree/rock. Usually the vehicles is on top(above) the terrain, just like the vendetta, and it's really hard to believe that a battlewagon or a landraider would destroy one of their tracks(which usually deflect dedicated anti-tank fire and artillery with ease) in a crater or the mentioned river crossing. However, that's the rules, and they don't change if you put that exact vehicle on a flying stand. Solid pieces of terrain are defined no further than by their actual volume, but area terrain is defined by a border. If your skimmer crosses that border, it's inside terrain, no matter how far up.

Ok, your argument is null by the fact that how easy a vehicle can throw a track has nothing to do with its armor value. An M1 Abrams can take a direct hit from anti-tank fire but can still throw a track driving over some rubble that wouldnt harm a humvee.

What nos is arguing is that we play a 2d game in a 3d world. If anything overlaps its DT. UNFORTUNATELY, the rules are too vague to cover models like Vendetta's which is the REASON why people interpret how it affects them so differently. To say you are 100% right and there is no room for other interpretations is a little naive and you should really broaden your thought process before continuing to proclaim such things. The volume of ruling going against you should deter you enough to play it on your own/your TO's Interpretations because in the end THAT IS WHAT IT IS. <<< EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD! If the TO says it is this way, if there is a house rule that says it is this way, or if your opponent agree's its this way then IT IS THIS WAY, No use in arguing over something that is out of your area of control. Though, ide like to see you go up to a GT judge and tell them they dont know how to run the tournament. Or the Vegas tournament which is like the finals for the U.S. tournament circuit if I am correct. Ide say its pretty clear how it should be ruled. I just ask you BROADEN your thought process and use a LITTLE RAI, and than proceed to have fun.


I wont comment further here as the thread no longer matters to any of my gaming area's or local GT's. Let the stubborn be stubborn and mad while the rest of us enjoy this game we love.

The volume of rulings are with me, actually. The rules are perfectly fine to cover all vehicles; you treat alol vehicles equally and without giving one an unfair advantage.

Only for terrain and blast markers / templates, from memory, do you we play it 2D from above. Pplease dont use hyperbole, it weakens your already rule-less argument.

You're also missing the point of this board: this IS NOT a game. this is the perfect place to discuss what the rules *actually* say.

Oh, and as for "use a little RAI"? Well, I have done. They have FAQ'd EXACTLY the number of exceptions they want for the Valkyrie, which coincides EXACTLY with the in-codex rules exceptions for the SR *and* the BA codex has a FAQ which does not add additional changes. So, this means that "RAI" GW have had many opportunities to do what you suggest - and havent.

So, "RAI" you are wrong, as well as RAW

I love how people assume GW has even considered this. That's cute considering how many FAQ's we've seen missing the most important rules questions people had about an army.

So when they FAQ'd some key elements to the Valkyrie, having it brought to their attention enough that they remembered to include it in the BA and GK codex as printed rules, you truly believe they DIDNT think about anything else?

That isnt "cute", thats ignoring Occams Razor.

Or that's having played GW games for close to 20 years and knowing that the kind of thing you think of as highly unlikely is exactely how GW has worked for the past 20 years.

Not saying your wrong Nos but seriously if you honestly think GW thinks of this stuff all the time you really need to take a step back.

Tomb King wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

vonjankmon wrote:Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Just pick a battlewagon(or any random box shaped vehicle without funky rules) instead of a vendetta. You could really argue that a battlewagon can never really be IN terrain, unless you pick the piece of terrain up off the table and pretend the vehicle is inside a wall/tree/rock. Usually the vehicles is on top(above) the terrain, just like the vendetta, and it's really hard to believe that a battlewagon or a landraider would destroy one of their tracks(which usually deflect dedicated anti-tank fire and artillery with ease) in a crater or the mentioned river crossing. However, that's the rules, and they don't change if you put that exact vehicle on a flying stand. Solid pieces of terrain are defined no further than by their actual volume, but area terrain is defined by a border. If your skimmer crosses that border, it's inside terrain, no matter how far up.

Ok, your argument is null by the fact that how easy a vehicle can throw a track has nothing to do with its armor value. An M1 Abrams can take a direct hit from anti-tank fire but can still throw a track driving over some rubble that wouldnt harm a humvee.

What nos is arguing is that we play a 2d game in a 3d world. If anything overlaps its DT. UNFORTUNATELY, the rules are too vague to cover models like Vendetta's which is the REASON why people interpret how it affects them so differently. To say you are 100% right and there is no room for other interpretations is a little naive and you should really broaden your thought process before continuing to proclaim such things. The volume of ruling going against you should deter you enough to play it on your own/your TO's Interpretations because in the end THAT IS WHAT IT IS. <<< EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD! If the TO says it is this way, if there is a house rule that says it is this way, or if your opponent agree's its this way then IT IS THIS WAY, No use in arguing over something that is out of your area of control. Though, ide like to see you go up to a GT judge and tell them they dont know how to run the tournament. Or the Vegas tournament which is like the finals for the U.S. tournament circuit if I am correct. Ide say its pretty clear how it should be ruled. I just ask you BROADEN your thought process and use a LITTLE RAI, and than proceed to have fun.


I wont comment further here as the thread no longer matters to any of my gaming area's or local GT's. Let the stubborn be stubborn and mad while the rest of us enjoy this game we love.

That's a real constructive answer. Ignoring all of the rules arguments and calling people stubborn, because a totally void RL comparison is off, is really the way to show you're right. I guess your argument is null by the fact, that you used caps.
I assume you didn't read any of my posts at all, because I'm not arguing the same point nos is. You entire post is basically yelling "Lalala, I can't hear you!". There is no room to argue in RAW, it clearly defines that a skimmer above a forest has to test for terrain. There is plenty of room for changing rules to make your game more fun. If your TO decideds to write his own rulebook, that's out of your hand, so you should hold true to your own opinion and never again discuss any rules. Ever.

You might want to check the rules of YMDC, especially #4.

vonjankmon wrote:Or that's having played GW games for close to 20 years and knowing that the kind of thing you think of as highly unlikely is exactely how GW has worked for the past 20 years.

Logical fallacy in your argument there

vonjankmon wrote:Not saying your wrong Nos but seriously if you honestly think GW thinks of this stuff all the time you really need to take a step back.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say they think of this "all the time"? No. What I DID say is that, given they were asked a LOT of questions about the Valk, INCLUDING terrain, yet they only chose to Errata the small exceptions they did, is it not less likely that they entirely forgot about everything else?

No, it isnt. It fails even a basic application of Occams Razor.

Given no other information, the ONLY exceptions to the rules for vehicles (and skimmers specifically) are those listed. That's it. Nothing else, UNLESS you houserule it.

Which isnt the point of YMDC...

It is incredibly simply, amigos:

RAW, Valkryies operate exactly like skimmers except for assaults/passengers. You measure to the hull for everything except those 2. If it is above the terrain, it is in the terrain.

Feel free to use any other house rules or variations for GT or wherever(I personally do) but until they enact rules for fliers in regular 40K, they are really tall skimmers, nothing more or less.

As stupid as it sounds, it is part of the game we have foolishly decided to play.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it isnt. It fails even a basic application of Occams Razor.

First Occams Razor is not irrefutable logic.

Second It also does not say "The simplest explianation is mostly likely the correct one". The razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

I never said it was.

However, given no other information than we currently have, the explanation that "GW entirely forgot about the valkyrie, despite writing a FAq covering it AND then writing those same rules in the GK and BA codex" is, frankly, awful.

But if the question came up so many times then why did GW not just say "If the wing are over rocks it makes a DT test"?

GW constantly forgets to cover it's bases when it comes to rules, Codecies, FAQs, and everything else. It woudn't surprise me in the least if they plumb forgot to address the issue about Vend/Valk/Raven being above terrain.

Does that mean it's exactly what happened? No, that's why it's a logical fallacy to assume so. But that doesn't mean it didn't, either.

However, it's true that without reason to except it from the usual rules, we shoudl follow them. Anything else would be conjecture and RAI.

I'm curious about this idea of benig above area terrain rather than in it. I think it's nos that's been saying area terrain is 2 dimensional, and extends upwards indefinitely. Is there a reference for this? I didn't see it in the BRB.

Because otherwise noone is ever "in" terrain.

So then a skimmer can never start or end it's move in Difficult Terrain, never causing a DT check?

Area terrain has no vertical limit. It is defined by a border on the table, so being above it counts as being in it.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Area terrain has no vertical limit. It is defined by a border on the table, so being above it counts as being in it.

-cgmckenzie

Reference? I coudln't find anything supporting that claim.

For a very long time GW has suffered from issues caused by that incestuous horror known as in-house play testing. Even when something is murky to us the folks at GW know exactly what the author was intending since they were effectively sitting there while he wrote it. So they never think to clarify what goes to print since they saw no issue in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But to go back on topic, would it take an incredible leap in logic or "break the game" to say that any model on a Valkyrie flight stand uses the base of the stand for all purposes other than LoS/shooting? Of course not. Did GW do that in the 5e rules? No. Because there was no such animal when Alessio wrote the rules. The only part of this that is a giant fail on GW's part is that (In the, what... Nearly four years since the IG book was released?) they haven't handled it in a simple, logical way. No, we have to worry about who can pass under the wings and come up with some truly shoulder popping reaches about why an a/c flying over the battlefield can't have part of it's tail overhang a trench.

As with all the continent sized gray areas of this game, the folks you game with and the tournaments you play in will determine what those rules actually mean, regardless of what they "say". But if you think that flying, armored vehicles really should need to worry more about ending a game turn over a destroyed garden shed than crossing over that shed during the turn...

4 years? 2, if that.

5th ed is even 4 years old.

In addition: not only is there the valkyrie, there is the Stormraven. With EXACTLY the same exceptions as the Valk. Exactly the same.

So: would it be game breaking to arbitrarily change rules you dont like? No, not particularly. However why change them when they work PERFECTLY well in the current rules? What purpose does it serve apart from taking an undercosted unit and making it slightly better for no justifiable reason

nosferatu1001 wrote:4 years? 2, if that.

5th ed is even 4 years old.

In addition: not only is there the valkyrie, there is the Stormraven. With EXACTLY the same exceptions as the Valk. Exactly the same.

So: would it be game breaking to arbitrarily change rules you dont like? No, not particularly. However why change them when they work PERFECTLY well in the current rules? What purpose does it serve apart from taking an undercosted unit and making it slightly better for no justifiable reason

Please do not use the words "Stormraven" and "Undercosted" together. They belong nowhere near each other.

Vendetta is undercosted. That has also been the theme of this thread, so i would havbe thought the context was clear

I don't see any support for your current point of view on this, Nos. The best definition I'm finding for something being in terrain is on pg 22, in the bullet "Inside area terrain." It indicates that if models have their bases in the terrain, they have cover. This is the closest I've found to determining when something is "in" terrain.

Unless you can find more support, I think what little evidence there is (which honestly isn't much) actually points to judging whether you're "in" terrain to be determined by the base.

Pg 13 and 14 in the BRB discuss area terrain as being defined by the borders on the table. You can have things peppered about in it to change up LOS but the terrain is still that column defined by the borders.

If a tau tank were to have part of it hanging over the terrain border, it would take a check. There are no special rules for the 'flyers' that change that simple because they are tall.

-cgmckenzie




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:I don't see any support for your current point of view on this, Nos. The best definition I'm finding for something being in terrain is on pg 22, in the bullet "Inside area terrain." It indicates that if models have their bases in the terrain, they have cover. This is the closest I've found to determining when something is "in" terrain.

Unless you can find more support, I think what little evidence there is (which honestly isn't much) actually points to judging whether you're "in" terrain to be determined by the base.

BRB pg 71 under measuring distance for skimmers "The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both."

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:4 years? 2, if that.

5th ed is even 4 years old.

In addition: not only is there the valkyrie, there is the Stormraven. With EXACTLY the same exceptions as the Valk. Exactly the same.

So: would it be game breaking to arbitrarily change rules you dont like? No, not particularly. However why change them when they work PERFECTLY well in the current rules? What purpose does it serve apart from taking an undercosted unit and making it slightly better for no justifiable reason

I could swear that the copyright date of my IG Codex is 2008. Hang on. I'll go double check. Well, what do you know? It is. Let me see what it is on the Valkyrie's box. Shocking! Also 2008. And since neither the book nor model magically appeared out of thin air on the day of release I'd say that GW had at least 4 years to work out the interactions between the Valkyrie, it's base/height and the game rules.

And if they work so perfectly why is there this thread and probably dozens like it all over the web? Wether or not those flyers are costed properly has about as much to do with the rule as the color of my hair, so why even bring it up?

Most recent edition for C:IG is July 2009(I literally just checked). The last trademark before that for GW was in 2008, so that is the trademark date printed on the books for GW(GamesWorkshop 2000-2008).

BTW, why does this matter?

-cgmckenzie

Right, area terrain isn't defined by actual objects, it's defined by an outline on the table. I'm with you on that. I don't see how that means that it extends upwards indefinitely.

Thought experiement: Let's say you have a tall building, and the top is considered to be clear. Let's also say that around the building there is area terrain represented by razor wire, bushes, trees, whatever. If you have a skimmer that sits easily on the roof, but hangs over the edge, is it in difficult terrain? If so, wouldn't it theoretically be able to be hit by blast markers and templates aimed at the ground, or assaulted from the ground, since that's the level of the terrain (and it's considered in the terrain)? The hull is both "over" the area terrain and sitting sable on clear ground. This could be done with a regular vehicle, as well. I think treating "over" as being "in" has unfortunate repercussions.

If we consider something to be "in" terrain only if the base or the hull is in contact with the object or area, I think the game behaves exactly as we expect it to in every area except when a skimmer has part of it's hull hanging over area terrain with it's base outside. Other definitions seem lead to weird situations that don't make sense within the game's own framework.

Yeah, it would be in difficult terrain. If they defined it as only being the ground and only things touching it were affected, then I would agree with you.

However, there is no depth stated for AT, so you can't start excluding models from it because you want to and claim it to be the rules.

Skimmers are measured to the hull, not the base. The base is ignored, so all terrain checks are counted from the hull of the skimmer. Vendettas are skimmers, so terrain checks are measured to their hulls as well.

Just because it is on the top of a flying stem doesn't mean it gets to ignore rules. They need to FAQ or errata it to make that happen.

-cgmckenzie

They don't define the height of area terrain. I assume that means you have to be touching it to be in it. You assume that it's indefinitely high. We both have the same amount of support for our view.

Obviously my "thought experiment" doesn't prove anything, really. But since our interpretations really have the same amout of rules support, it's worth examining their consequences. I think the interpretation of area terrain of indeterminate height leads to some akward situations, while using the base and/or hull actual points of contact to determine whether something is in terrain to be more in line with everything else in the rules.

That's good enough for me, honestly, unless we can find more rules support for either side.

But skimmers ignore the bases for movement and everything except assaults. So it would be impossible for skimmers to ever be in area terrain by your "they have to touch it" definition. Yet in the rules, it says that if they stop in terrain, they must take a terrain test.

Skimmers will always be above terrain unless they bump into a tree or rock formation sticking up. Since skimmer height varies, terrain height varies. The rules don't say that "all skimmers except really tall ones take terrain tests when in terrain."

Just because a skimmer is taller than the rest doesn't excuse it from the rest of the skimmer rules. This has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread. Unless you have rules indicating that they treat terrain differently than other skimmers, they do not. Simple as that.

-cgmckenzie

All previous skimmers used the old clear round flight stands, the Storm Raven and Valk/Vend use the new flight base, which is an actual base instead of just the tiny stand.

This is really why GW needs to clear this up, the Raven and Valk are new models that don't easily follow the previous rules for the game.

Technically aircraft do not have hulls, they have fuselages. You can't actually shoot a valkyrie or a vendetta by the rules. For our house games we count the wings as part of the hull.

You could make the argument that since they are low orbit capable craft, they have hulls. That would make them space ships, and space ships have hulls(if anything SCI-FI is to be listened to)

-cgmckenzie

vonjankmon wrote:All previous skimmers used the old clear round flight stands, the Storm Raven and Valk/Vend use the new flight base, which is an actual base instead of just the tiny stand.

This is really why GW needs to clear this up, the Raven and Valk are new models that don't easily follow the previous rules for the game.

Both are bases. That argument is, well its not even an argument its so easily thrown out.

Both models EASILY fit within the current rules - just follow the 2 exceptions for em/disembark and contesting, and the same rules everyone else follows for, well, everything else. Arbitrarily changing the rules isnt needed

ElCheezus - then the vehicle rules tell you to ignore the base and measure to the hull. So something is "in" terrain if its base is "in" terrain, therefore you are "in" terrain if your hull is in terrain, and you are "in" area terrain if you are inside the boundary - under any other interpretation Skimmers never take any terrain checks.

Sanguinary Dan - so, codex IG is NOT 4 years old, the published date makes it AT MOST 3 years old. And theyve have that long to only FAQ / Errata the current exceptions - lending even MORE weight to the idea that these are the ONLY exceptions needed.

cgmckenzie wrote:You could make the argument that since they are low orbit capable craft, they have hulls. That would make them space ships, and space ships have hulls(if anything SCI-FI is to be listened to)

-cgmckenzie

Good point ships do have hulls.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ElCheezus - then the vehicle rules tell you to ignore the base and measure to the hull. So something is "in" terrain if its base is "in" terrain, therefore you are "in" terrain if your hull is in terrain, and you are "in" area terrain if you are inside the boundary - under any other interpretation Skimmers never take any terrain checks.

Yes, you ignore the base for measuring distances. Being in terrain requires no measuring, however.

So, this is my problem. On the one hand, we have area terrain being defined as indefinitely tall with absolutely no rules backup. On the other, we have no other way for a skimmer to be in terrain, if we ignore the base because of pg 71.

If we allow area terrain to be entirely different than anything else in the game, weird things happen. (what happens when the roof of a building is area terrain, but the ground under it isn't; like a building on stilts. Is the ground suddenly area terrain by virtue of the unlimited z-axis of the area terrain above it?) So not only does it not have a basis in the rules, it would be a bad design choice.

On the other hand, we could assume that the bit on pg 71 doesn't apply. I tend to think that the paragraph is delineating the difference between vehicles and infantry. Usually you measure to the base with infantry, and the BRB didn't want you trying to measure to the base instead of the hull on skimmers for range or something. Under that view, the world is happy again because we can use the base to determine if something is in terrain.

Without doing one of those two things, skimmers will never be considered in terrain. I think one is clearly a better choice than the other, both in terms of the rules and in terms of good game design.

You're making this far more complicated than it has to be.

Per the BRB, you always ignore the skimmer base except for assaulting. Disembarking is FAQ'd to measure to the base also for vendettas/valkyries.

If you always ignore the skimmer base but only count area terrain as the stuff touching the tabletop, skimmers will never be in terrain. But in the BRB, it says multiple times that a skimmer stopping in terrain takes a terrain test.

So, it leads me to the conclusion that when skimmers stop above area terrain, they are in area terrain.

Valk/vendettas have no special rules that excuse them from standard skimmer practices in regards to terrain. If they are above the terrain, they are in the terrain. Simple, easy, straight forward.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Per the BRB, you always ignore the skimmer base except for assaulting.

It says the base is "effectively ignored" in the section about measuring to the vehicle. It doesn't say that it's always ignored for all purposes; it just says that, when measuring, you measure to other things.

If you always ignore the skimmer base but only count area terrain as the stuff touching the tabletop, skimmers will never be in terrain. But in the BRB, it says multiple times that a skimmer stopping in terrain takes a terrain test.

I've acknowledged this.

So, it leads me to the conclusion that when skimmers stop above area terrain, they are in area terrain.

The exact same facts lead me to the conclusion that you can use the base to dermine whether something is in terrain.

The difference is that my interpretation limits the "effectively ignore the base" statement to the section in which it's located: measuring distances. Your interpretation involves making up qualities of area terrain that aren't in the book, and which have unwelcome repercussions.

Valk/vendettas have no special rules that excuse them from standard skimmer practices in regards to terrain. If they are above the terrain, they are in the terrain. Simple, easy, straight forward.

-cgmckenzie

Just as a 'by the way', I'm support my view for all skimmers, not just the Valk/Vend/Ravens. I would play them all the same.

If a tau hoverthing hangs over area terrain whilst its base is in the clear, the tank has to tank a terrain test even though it doesn't physically touch the terrain.

Checking to see if the skimmer in in terrain is a form of measuring. All measuring goes to the hull of the skimmer, not the base(except for assaults/disembarking valk).

BRB FAQ "Q: If a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain,
may any passengers disembark onto the impassable
terrain? (p71)
A: No, you may never disembark into impassable terrain.'

The term used is over impassable terrain, not touching or on.

Pg. 36 of the BRB says measuring to the base of vehicles cannot be used because most vehicles don't have bases.

Pg 71 says that all distances are measured to the hull with the except of guns, access points, and fire points. The base is effectively ignored except in the case of assaults.

If you are using the base to determine terrain, you aren't ignoring it.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:If a tau hoverthing hangs over area terrain whilst its base is in the clear, the tank has to tank a terrain test even though it doesn't physically touch the terrain.

Yes, this is a consequence of your interpretation.

Checking to see if the skimmer in in terrain is a form of measuring.

I disagree. Wether a skimmer is in terrain or not is binary. The base is on it or it isn't. The base doesn't have to be within 0" of something, it just has to be on it. You don't have to measure exactly how "in contact" something is.

All measuring goes to the hull of the skimmer, not the base(except for assaults/disembarking valk).

BRB FAQ "Q: If a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain,
may any passengers disembark onto the impassable
terrain? (p71)
A: No, you may never disembark into impassable terrain.'

The term used is over impassable terrain, not touching or on.

We're not talking about impassable terrain.

If we were, the BRB refers to it the same way, using the term "over." It also has a bit about wether or not you can actually place the model on top of the terrain. Since you can't take it off the base and rest a skimmer on it's hull unless it's immobile, that must mean that it's base is on the impassable terrain. This falls into the waiting arms of my interpretation rather nicely.

Pg. 36 of the BRB says measuring to the base of vehicles cannot be used because most vehicles don't have bases.

Pg 71 says that all distances are measured to the hull with the except of guns, access points, and fire points. The base is effectively ignored except in the case of assaults.

If you are using the base to determine terrain, you aren't ignoring it.

-cgmckenzie

The base is effectively ignored for measurements, as in it's not usually used for them. That doesn't mean we don't pretend it doesn't exist.


Also, even if you can tear down my support for using the base, you're still left with no reasoning at all for your treatment of area terrain.

My point in including the tau hovertank example is that if you only count the base for terrain, you are having a gross misrepresentation of the model. Ask any tau player and they will say if the tank passes over terrain, the appropriate tests must be taken. Otherwise, there is a model on the board that is gigantic but only has a footprint the size of a soda can.

The extrapolation I said with terrain being vertically limitless is because GW hasn't said that the valk/vendetta is excused from what are otherwise the rules for skimmers.

If a vehicle has its hull in terrain, the vehicle is in terrain.
Skimmers are vehicles.
If a skimmer has its hull in terrain, it is in terrain.

There are some special cases where skimmers have their own rules but this isn't one of them.

Is checking for terrain an assault? If no, then you ignore the base for that purpose.

And effectively ignored doesn't mean usually ignore it, it means that you ignored it to the point where you pretended it wasn't there. If they wanted you to use the base for terrain, they would have said 'ignored except in assaults and in terrain checks.' They didn't, so you ignore the base.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:The extrapolation I said with terrain being vertically limitless is because GW hasn't said that the valk/vendetta is excused from what are otherwise the rules for skimmers.

But your extrapolation has to do with normal skimmers, as well. Without fabricating a third dimension for area terrain, regular skimmers should be able to hang over them as well. There is absolutely no justification for your treatment of area terrain this way.

If they wanted you to use the base for terrain, they would have said 'ignored except in assaults and in terrain checks.' They didn't, so you ignore the base.

-cgmckenzie

Except that you have to measure for assaults, to make sure you're in range. Terrain has no range.

Show me where it gives you any evidence in the rules about the base for skimmers being the only thing that matters? I keep pointing out rules and quotes from the BRB in my support, you don't. Provide some rule quotes to back up your argument.

-cgmckenzie

That's the thing, then, innit? There's no definition about how to be considered "in" terrain. What I'm providing is a definition that works with all present rules (yes, I know you disagree because of pg 71), and doesn't have crazy repercussions.

The closest thing to implying what is in terrain is on pg 22, when it talks about models with their *base* inside terrain as having cover. Since it cares about bases, I carry that on to include skimmer bases. In general, vehicles have to use their hulls in place of bases (pg 3 and others. It's established multiple times). However, since a) skimmers have bases and b) their hulls don't touch the table, it is logical to use the bases.

The only thing in the way of this being perfectly clear is your reference to pg 71 and the phrase "effectively ignored". However, I still think that it's talk of measuring to bases doesn't apply, since there's no measuring involved.

Also, on pg 71, it talks about landing on impassable terrain by being "on top" of it. The only way for a skimmer to be on top of something is for the base to be resting on it. You can't take the skimmer off of the base, so resting the hull on it doesn't make sense. Obviously the base counts for something.

I've shown you some of mine, now show me your support for your interpretation of area terrain having no bounds.

Page 71 and the rules for skimmers interacting with difficult and impassible terrain have only one simple conclusion:

If the body of the skimmer is above the area of the terrain, it is in the terrain. This is simple, clear, and totally consistent with the rules for every other vehicle.

Mannahnin wrote:Page 71 and the rules for skimmers interacting with difficult and impassible terrain have only one simple conclusion:

If the body of the skimmer is above the area of the terrain, it is in the terrain. This is simple, clear, and totally consistent with the rules for every other vehicle.

Your simple, clear, and consistent conclusion is magical area terrain.

My simple, clear, and consistent conclusion is to use the base.

You're hung up on a sentence about measuring.

I'm hung up on a lack of support for area terrain that reaches higher and lower than its representation. I actually find this inconsistent with things like TLOS and methods to determine cover.

Your solution has weird and unwelcome repercussions if carried to their conclusion when applied to other situations.

My solution doesn't have that problem.

I think you're right that there's one conclusion (I won't say it's simple, since it's so easy to take pg. 71 out of context), but obviously I disagree with what the conclusion actually is.

Of course p21 talks about bases; at this point in the rules ONLY infantry are consisdered.

You are then told to effectively ignore the skimmers base; you are trying to not ignore it, without any rules support for doing so.

Agree, you can't just randomly chose to not ignore the base unless the rules tell you so. otherwise you could chose to not ignore it whenever it is beneficial to you. For example if you want the explosion to hit the unit that assaulted it, while measuring from the hull when your guardsmen are standing underneath. This is obviously not the case.

Mind that a border is never a line on the ground. If a plane crosses the border from the US to Canada, it would be in Canada, and not in the US. If a skimmer's hull crosses the border of area terrain, it is in area terrain.

Wow, I am glad some other people stepped into this, I thought it was going to be the two of us circling and growling until the thread got locked(for excessive circling and growling).

We have a precedent of skimmers hulls counting for terrain, with the base just being there to put the tank at clothes-lining height for guardsmen from the Tau. A Tau player would be laughed off the board if he tried to make the argument that his hovermonstrosity is only in terrain if the base is in it.

And on pg 71, it says the base is ignored for anything but assaults. Assaults aren't part of movement but are included in that paragraph to show the one exception to the 'ignore the skimmer's base' rule.

Unless you can provide rules back up for your stance, it holds about as much water as a straw hat.

-cgmckenzie

pg 22 sets the basic rule that bases are what count. Vehicles break this rule because they don't have bases, and their hull touch the ground. Skimmers break that rule again because they do have bases, and their hulls float.

You don't measure to the base (and it's "effectively ignored") because the hull has a wider footprint. There's no point where you would measure to the vehicle and the base would be closer than the skimmer (at the time of the BRB, before the valk/vend/raven). The base being effectively ignored isn't a rule, it's a summary that reinforces to the player that measuring to the hull should be sufficient.

I don't usually like getting into quoting definitions because it means the discussion has reached a low point, but the word "effectively" has the implication of not being official. That is, it describes the result of something rather than describing the rule of something.

We have a base. We know where the skimmer touches the ground. Area terrain is defines by outlines on the ground. Combine the base with the outline and we know when the skimmer is in the area.

I've backed up my position with rules, logic, definitions, an idea of good game design, and even taken the effort to see if there are unwelcome consequences. Your only point against is is one sentence in an unrelated section that isn't even a rule, it's a description of a consequence.

Now, your turn for once. Give me rules support for magical area terrain that reaches the sky. How does shrubbery reach heights above the tallest ruin? Why would superman not be able to leap it in a single bound? The only support I've heard is that your interpretation doesn't work unless area terrain works that way. Doesn't it say something about your interpretation when you have to make up rules to support it?

Uh, could you provide a dictionary quote for effectively? I haven't found a single one(not even a translation) to support the implication you claim. Any synonyms I could find were along the lines of "completely", "absolutely", "for a fact", "definitely" or "ultimately". Not a single one of those implies uncertainty or "not being official".

Also note that movement rules never talk about bases in respect to any terrain tests, just about models.

Now, your turn for once. Give me rules support for magical area terrain that reaches the sky. How does shrubbery reach heights above the tallest ruin? Why would superman not be able to leap it in a single bound? The only support I've heard is that your interpretation doesn't work unless area terrain works that way. Doesn't it say something about your interpretation when you have to make up rules to support it?

The rules tell you that the boundaries of a terrain piece mark an area. An area does extend to the sky, defined by the boundaries, just as you don't leave a country by jumping into the air. If any part of a skimmer moves into that area, it moved into the terrain piece, and would have to test. That's the rules, "What would happen in reality?" has no bearing on how the game is played whatsoever.

If you'd force your definition vehicles that terrain is only occupying the actually modeled terrain, you wound never, ever have to take a terrain test for craters, rivers or any terrain without obstacles because it does not "magically reach the sky", or the vehicle right on top of it, for that matter.

Also your example is lacking. If you land on top of a ruin, you'd take one test, as the entire ruin is one piece of area terrain. If you'd land on top of a building, you'd take one test for landing on impassible terrain, as you don't test more than once for any move. Regular vehicles can move through two pieces of terrain, too.

The rules say that area terrain represents anything from craters and mud to things like forests and ruins. The rule for simplicity's sake is that anything in the terrain takes the test, even if it wouldn't interact with the ground normally. This is to represent jagged rocks sticking up, trees that get in the way, or anything else that can inhibit movement.

Since the rules for area terrain do not define an upper limit of the rocks/shrubs/trees/ruins, you must play as though they are infinitely high, otherwise you will get models exempt from the standard rules without a rule allowing it.

For example, the Tau hovertarget floating a couple feet off the ground would obviously interact with jagged rocks and shrubs by stopping in/passing through the terrain. It takes a check for stopping but is granted a free-be for the passing through because of skimmer rules. A valk/vendetta wouldn't interact, from the height it is modeled at, with shrubs but the rules don't make any exceptions to them for ignoring terrain simply because they are tall. It takes a check.

-cgmckenzie

This thread is simple. Agree to disagree. Your both right and your both wrong. The only way to solve this is to have GW Faq it. You all can fight over it day in and day out until your fingers fall off and your rulebooks fall apart from over use. Lock this thread up as it is going no where.

ef·fec·tive·ly/iˈfektəvlē/Adverb
1. In such a manner as to achieve a desired result: "resources used effectively".
2. Actually but not officially or explicitly: "they were effectively controlled by the people"

It's the first thing that came up on the goole search.

Anyway, TK is right. I haven't seen a new argument for a while, so this is basically Threefold Repetition.

Tenets of YMDC dont allow for dictionary definition; plus, if you ARE going to do so you shoudl at least cite your sources. OED is probably the best, as there are some key differences between English and US English.

Except ElCheezus wasn't the one who brought up the necessity of defining "effectively", Jidmah brought it up in his argument against ElCheezus's argument.

TK added the best thing yet to this thread though. Until it's FAQ'ed this could go back and forth forever.

No; originally ElCheezus stated that "effectively" is not official, based on its definition.

Yes because "effectively" and "is" do not have the same meaning. While definitions are discouraged in YMDC making the difference between words clear is not. Looking for the specific definitions to pick apart the wording was not started by ElCheezus.

But in this case it is "effectively" the same

You are told to "effectively" ignore the base, except for some specific exceptions

Being in area terrain is NOT one of those exceptions, so you still ignore the base.

OMG Nos, really? Ok this is my last post in this thread because I can actually take good advice when it's given.

Thanks Tomb King.

this is why I hate GW, discussions can actually get to this point because their rules suck.

I was explicitly asked for the definition I was using, so I provided it.

The term "effectively" talks about the effect of a something. It quite pointedly means that, while the rule doesn't say so, the result is that you don't have to measure to the base. It distincly isn't a rule, or it wouldn't even use that word. The sentence is yet another one of GWs statements that redundantly describes a rule instead of actually defining one.

You ignore the base except where they specifically tell you otherwise.

Your interpretation is in conflict with how Area Terrain works as an abstraction, and ignores the passage about skimmers ending their movement in terrain. A skimmer (except a Monolith) will never touch the area-defining flat ground-level piece of Area Terrain, but that area is considered, for abstract game purposes like cover and difficult terrain tests, to be full of "stuff" which sticks up and which models can use for cover and vehicles can smash into and get stuck on.

Mannahnin wrote:You ignore the base except where they specifically tell you otherwise.

Or: you measure to the hull in all cases except maybe assault if necessary. End of Rule. For explanation they add that, in effect (read: effectively), that implies you don't have to worry about the base (so, ya know, you can basically ignore it).

[quore]Your interpretation is in conflict with how Area Terrain works as an abstraction, and ignores the passage about skimmers ending their movement in terrain.

But then you are changing "in" to "on"

I think a lot of people disagree that the RAW points your way, and have shown why.

You are never told you can use the base of a skimmer FOR anything, so you cannot. Your interpretation makes up rules for skimmers.

Also, your cite-less definition, which i suspect is from a US English dictionary (and therefore NO USE in a discussion about a book written in actual English, never mind the tenets of this forum) can be ignored - you certain cannot hand peoples "confusion" about effectively on it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:But then you are changing "in" to "on"

I think a lot of people disagree that the RAW points your way, and have shown why.

You are never told you can use the base of a skimmer FOR anything, so you cannot. Your interpretation makes up rules for skimmers.

Also, your cite-less definition, which i suspect is from a US English dictionary (and therefore NO USE in a discussion about a book written in actual English, never mind the tenets of this forum) can be ignored - you certain cannot hand peoples "confusion" about effectively on it.

Re-read your post before posting. To all of the people playing this correctly just ignore the few who are different. Every major tournament in the U.S. has ruled that it is only in DT when the base is, so unless your playing where they ruled it differently than no need to argue against such a stubborn person.

What tournaments are these? Are they also the ones who ruled that skimmers can hang off the edge of the board?

Nosferatu is correct. Eldar players have been playing this way since, at the vary latest, the beginning of 5th. Arguements such as this have only come up recently due to the creation of the Valk and Stormraven.

People want to keep their cake and eat it as well 8/

Tomb King wrote: To all of the people playing this correctly just ignore the few who are different. Every major tournament in the U.S. has ruled that it is only in DT when the base is, so unless your playing where they ruled it differently than no need to argue against such a stubborn person.

What on earth are you talking about? The only tournament in the US which has made up new rules regarding the Valk/Vend and SR is the Throne of Skulls next weekend in Vegas. I'm playing in it and have discussed those rules with the organizers.

There are scores of other large events which have not. If you can cite any examples of others, please feel free to provide links to the pages in question which show said rulings. Throne of Skulls is making an unusual and unprecedented change.

Tomb King wrote:Re-read your post before posting. To all of the people playing this correctly just ignore the few who are different. Every major tournament in the U.S. has ruled that it is only in DT when the base is, so unless your playing where they ruled it differently than no need to argue against such a stubborn person.

No, they havent.

In fact, only the Vegas ToS has

If you contend differently, please do somethjing unique for you - back your assertions up. Please provide links to online rulings which show this to be the case at EVERY major tournament.

Or, you know, actual rules? This side has kept slinging BRB quotes, you return fire from Merriam Webster.

Look at the hammerhead model for Tau Empire. Very little of the skimmer is actually above the base. Most of it hangs far over the little plastic circle. Does it only take terrain checks when the base is in terrain? No, because that is silly. Most every Tau player understands that the hull of their hovertarget is what counts, not the arbitrary circle holding it up.

Address that example. I have posted it multiple times and you fail to counter it.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Or, you know, actual rules? This side has kept slinging BRB quotes, you return fire from Merriam Webster.

This is absolutely wrong. I have quoted multiple sections that build my case for my interpretation. The problem is that you disagree with one. If you're confusing your disagreement and think it means I haven't quoted anything, I'm not sure there's a point in continuing. You'll just keep ignoring my arguments because they disagree with you.

As for your side, you have yet to provide any explanation for your definition of Area Terrain other than the fact that your interpretation doesn't work without adding rules. Your idea of ignoring the base leaves skimmers with no way to interact with area terrain as defined by the BRB. There's no getting around that at all, in any way, no matter how much you try. The only way you have a case is if you make up rules.

Before coming to my conclusion, I read all of your arguments and looked everything up in the rulebook, trying to understand your point of view. Have you done the same and actually tried to understand where I'm coming from? Or have you just stonewalled any idea that isn't yours? It certainly feels that way. It's not like I'm an enemy that will stand gloating over your corpse if you come to agree with me. I'm trying to help people understand why I see things this way. It's okay to consider if the other person might be right, you know.

Look at the hammerhead model for Tau Empire. Very little of the skimmer is actually above the base. Most of it hangs far over the little plastic circle. Does it only take terrain checks when the base is in terrain? No, because that is silly. Most every Tau player understands that the hull of their hovertarget is what counts, not the arbitrary circle holding it up.

Address that example. I have posted it multiple times and you fail to counter it.

Yes, it only takes terrain checks when the little circle is in area terrain or if it's hull touches it. I'm comfortable with this. Calling it silly has no actual rules weight; that starts heading back into the "real world" rationale, which we all know doesn't apply. I haven't addressed it because I have no problem with it.

As for definitions, well, I was asked for one point blank. If you want better definitions, look them up yourself. I personally don't need a dictionary to reference to know what the word "effectively" means.

If you don't get that:

a) "effectively" refers to the effect of something
b) if we're talking about the effects of a rule, then we aren't talking about an actual rule, only it's results

then I can't help you. I've tried, but I'm not a teacher or a tutor in English.

My view depends on not reading too far into a rule. I confine it to the section in which it is presented: "Measuring Distances"
Your view depends on rules that flat out don't exist.

I'm honestly surprised that you haven't played against Eldar or Tau players at any point over the last ten+ years and gotten accustomed to how it works. Kind of strange.

Argument from tradition is a fallacy. Just because it's been done one way in the past doesn't mean it's right or wrong. You need to argue from rules and logic.

I've already done that. I'm acknowledging the fact that you are arguing sincerely from your interpretation of the rules.

I'm just also expressing my surprise that the concept of a vehicle's hull being over area terrain is what determines whether a check is taken is new to you. I recognize that my surprise holds no weight in what remains of the debate.

Oh, it isn't new to me. One of my most common opponents (my brother-in-law who got me into the game) plays Tau, and I think we usually played it the way you describe. But after following this thread for a bit and investigating the all the rules and references I could find, I have come to my new conclusion.

Pg 13 says moving into the area defined by the borders makes the models take the terrain test, not models touching the terrain or on the terrain.

Pg 14 also says multiple times something to the point of 'inside/in/into terrain'. If the rule was only the items physically touching the ground, it would be 'on/touching/on top of terrain'.

Movement for skimmers on pg 71 states that is a skimmer starts or ends in difficult/dangerous terrain it takes a test. Again, it doesn't say 'on', it says 'in'.

It goes on to say a skimmer can end above impassable terrain if you can physically place it there, so flat area terrain deemed impassable that the skimmer overhangs would make it take a test simply for being over it even if the base was still in clear terrain.

-cgmckenzie

ElCheezus wrote:
a) "effectively" refers to the effect of something
b) if we're talking about the effects of a rule, then we aren't talking about an actual rule, only it's results

then I can't help you. I've tried, but I'm not a teacher or a tutor in English.

My view depends on not reading too far into a rule. I confine it to the section in which it is presented: "Measuring Distances"
Your view depends on rules that flat out don't exist.

This isn't the definition of effectively or really even something close to it.

Seeing as we like qouting the dictionary...

Mariam-Webster wrote:
Definition of EFFECTIVELY
1
: in effect : virtually <by withholding further funds they effectively killed the project>
2
: in an effective manner <dealt with the problem effectively>
See effectively defined for English-language learners »

So its a good thing you aren't an English tutor or teacher...we already have enough who do it poorly already.

As cgmkenzie said, terrain is defined purely by its edges. Terrain is an abstraction and goes infinitely upwards, as strange as that may sound.

cgmckenzie wrote:Pg 13 says moving into the area defined by the borders makes the models take the terrain test, not models touching the terrain or on the terrain.

Pg 14 also says multiple times something to the point of 'inside/in/into terrain'. If the rule was only the items physically touching the ground, it would be 'on/touching/on top of terrain'.

Movement for skimmers on pg 71 states that is a skimmer starts or ends in difficult/dangerous terrain it takes a test. Again, it doesn't say 'on', it says 'in'.

It goes on to say a skimmer can end above impassable terrain if you can physically place it there, so flat area terrain deemed impassable that the skimmer overhangs would make it take a test simply for being over it even if the base was still in clear terrain.

-cgmckenzie

So "on" vs. "in"? I mean, if you want to phase the matter of your models to make them able to actually be "in" buildings and terrain, instead of just "on top of" or "between the walls", that's hardcore man. I'm not sure I could pull it off.

There's no clear-cut definition of how to be in terrain that I've found. It certainly would help.

As for skimmers over impassable terrain, it also says you have to actually place the model on top of it, so hanging over it wouldn't count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naravus: I'm not sure what you're getting after. That definition seems to support my arguments, yet you talk like it defeats them.

Definition 1: virtually.

How does virtually compare to actually? Distinctively different, I think.

Virtually ignoring the base is distinctively different from actually ignoring the base.

No, the requirement says that you must be able to place it on top, not that you must place it on top. The difference is small but matters.

"A skimmer can even end it's move over impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must take a dangerous terrain test."

If the hull of my vendetta is over the impassable terrain, it takes the test. There is nothing compulsory about actually placing the base on the terrain, it just has to be able to be put there if you want to.

Since the BRB doesn't define touching the terrain as a requirement for being 'in' it, it simply isn't. It states that the terrain is defined by its borders. The airspace above the area is in it just as a plane flying over a country is in that country.

The base for skimmers is there to keep it off the table in a skimming/flying position. It can be used as a proxy for assaulting, other than that it is vestigial.

-cgmckenzie

'Juan effectively ignored the base'-the base was, for all purposes, ignored by Juan. It has the same meaning as 'Juan virtually ignored the base' or 'Juan actually ignored the base'. Effectively is pointing out how well he ignored the base. The adverb to "ignored's" verb.

You are correct, virtually is different in meaning than actually. However, my quote did defeat your arguement as you were using root words to help define a word improperly.

Similar to using the word assume to talk about donkeys 8/

However, you do actually ignore a skimmers base for all purposes other than assault or for disembarkation for things using an oval base. Other than that, the base serves no purpose. Virtually making them meaningless for purposes of movement.

Your argument allows for models to move onto the board edge with an overhang, which is, explicitly, against the rules of this little toy soldier make believe war we all take part in.

So wait, if there's impassable terrain that you can't actually place it on top of, it doesn't take the test if it's wing is hanging over? But if it's flat enough that you could put it there, it takes a test? That seems unfortunately inconsistent.

Including the "airspace" above the area terrain has no rules basis, no matter how many times you say it.

At absolute best, adding the airspace to the BRB's definition has the same amount of validity as using the base to determine what's in terrain. Of course, my interpretation has the benefit of not running into any weird situations, since the base and ground contact have precedent and are so commonly used throughout the entire book.

Naravus wrote:You are correct, virtually is different in meaning than actually. However, my quote did defeat your arguement as you were using root words to help define a word improperly.

Similar to using the word assume to talk about donkeys 8/

You're right, the root of the word doesn't always indicate its meaning. In this case, however, it still seems that the meaning you provide still supports my point. Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at.

However, you do actually ignore a skimmers base for all purposes other than assault or for disembarkation for things using an oval base. Other than that, the base serves no purpose. Virtually making them meaningless for purposes of movement.

Your argument allows for models to move onto the board edge with an overhang, which is, explicitly, against the rules of this little toy soldier make believe war we all take part in.

All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world! (current FAQ v 1.2) My interpretation is specifically overridden by other rules when it comes to board edge. I'm not arguing against a FAQ, that's for sure.

But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

ElCheezus wrote:Including the "airspace" above the area terrain has no rules basis, no matter how many times you say it.

So how can any model ever be forced to take a terrain test, if it occupies nothing but the actual model? It is impossible to put any model IN terrain unless you melt the terrain pieces and push your model in. Area terrain must have an airspace above it to work at all. If you disagree, please quote rules why any vehicle ever has to take a terrain test in area terrain.

As above.

You are areguing from an inconsistent position.

Measure to the hull, find the hull is "in" terrain and test. Works for ALL vehicles with absolutely no exceptions required.

If there is impassable terrain you can't place the model on, you are not allowed to have it hang over. It is impassable. If you can place the model on it, you can have overhang per the rules.

That overhang indicates airspace, comes from the BRB, and says nothing about contact or the base.

Vehicles use the hull of everything other models use bases for, so being over terrain with the hull of a skimmer counts as being in terrain.

-cgmckenzie

Mannahnin wrote:But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

Yes, the treatment of the table edge differs from the treatment of area terrain because they're different. It has been declared that nothing even exists outside the table edge, which is pretty strict. More importantly, we've been told how it works, unlike area terrain. So yeah, inconsistent, but with a reason.

Jidmah wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Including the "airspace" above the area terrain has no rules basis, no matter how many times you say it.

So how can any model ever be forced to take a terrain test, if it occupies nothing but the actual model? It is impossible to put any model IN terrain unless you melt the terrain pieces and push your model in. Area terrain must have an airspace above it to work at all. If you disagree, please quote rules why any vehicle ever has to take a terrain test in area terrain.

The fact that your interpretation must include something that isn't in the rulebook should be a sign. Wait, this sounds familiar, I think I've said it before. I've already given the rules references and I've never said it occupies nothing but the actual model. You might want to reread the thread.

You're effectively ignoring the point everybody else is making about the base being effectively ignored. Our point is still there, but you are treating as if it weren't. Same way the base operates on a skimmer.

Why are skimmers treated any differently that other vehicles in terrain? If the hull of a LRBT is in the area terrain it takes a check. Where does it say that a skimmer ignores that and only measures to the base?

Everything that mentions vehicles/skimmers, and bases says that you ignore them or do not use them. Show a rule that says otherwise.

-cgmckenzie

No, you didn't. I actually checked if I missed something in your posts.

You quoted a rule for cover, which never ever applies to vehicles, and extrapolated a ruling from that, which would force you to break the rule which tells you to ignore skimmer bases. Then you argued that "effectively" means something it doesn't.

Bottom line, your interpreted rule never forces a vehicle without a base to take a terrain test. Unless, of course, you use regular rules for non-skimmers and invented ones for skimmers.

You also ignored any reference to borders actually being vertical planes, rather than lines on the ground as you define them. Crossing such a plane results in entering the terrain, no matter the height.

cgmckenzie: I disagree, non-area terrain does not have borders defining it, so you can not assume it takes up more space than the model actually does. Placing a skimmer on top of impassible terrain is an exception to this, and handles the situation without flaw.(actually refering to your previous post, you posted while I was typing)

Jidmah wrote:You quoted a rule for cover, which never ever applies to vehicles, and extrapolated a ruling from that, which would force you to break the rule which tells you to ignore skimmer bases. Then you argued that "effectively" means something it doesn't.

This is the closest we get to any definition of what it means to be in terrain, which is an important element of this discussion. If you have a better definition, feel free to reference it.

How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

ElCheezus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

Yes, the treatment of the table edge differs from the treatment of area terrain because they're different. It has been declared that nothing even exists outside the table edge, which is pretty strict. More importantly, we've been told how it works, unlike area terrain. So yeah, inconsistent, but with a reason.

It's still a contradiction. We know that a skimmer is NOT entirely on the table if just its base is on, but the body is hanging off. So the body is what determines its position.

How and why would we think this works differently in regards to area terrain?

No problem, amigo. I was referring to the method of 'poor man's terrain' where you put a piece of cardboard down that is labelled 'area terrain' or 'impassable payless shoe store'. But if you actually have physical terrain, it loses its ability to do that.

And yes, my army box has an 'impassable payless shoe store' in it.

-cgmckenzie

Ps sent from phone, so please excuse spelling/formatting errors

Might be OT, but most of my impassible terrain comes from the model railway section off ebay. A rock is a rock, no matter the scale, and that stuff almost never has any bidders

Jidmah wrote:How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

There's no rules support for the vertical dimensions of area terrain. That's a quality that you're assuming exists becaue that's the only way your interpretation works. I've said this far to many times already, without any good, rules-supported reason for why it would have a vertical dimension.

Mannahnin wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But your position vis a vis area terrain and skimmer bases is inconsistent with skimmer bases and the table edge.

The skimmer's position is always determined by where the hull of the model is, as with every other vehicle. Not by the base. Both for area terrain and for the edge of the table.

Yes, the treatment of the table edge differs from the treatment of area terrain because they're different. It has been declared that nothing even exists outside the table edge, which is pretty strict. More importantly, we've been told how it works, unlike area terrain. So yeah, inconsistent, but with a reason.

It's still a contradiction. We know that a skimmer is NOT entirely on the table if just its base is on, but the body is hanging off. So the body is what determines its position.

How and why would we think this works differently in regards to area terrain?

In this case, we've been provided reason for a vertical dimension, which makes the difference. The space outside of the playing area isn't even empty, it's considered nonexistent.

In every instance in the BGB(apparently the 40k BRB) that bases are mentioned as belonging to vehicles, the rules say to ignore or otherwise disregard the base except in assaults. Every single time. There is no evidence to support your interpretation of the rules that the base is used to determine terrain status.

Because the BGB always says ignore bases AND talks about swimmers in terrain, all the evidence supports the idea of the hull being above counts as it being in terrain. Provide a rule that contradicts that and you migrant have a case but as it stands now, you reply have no evidence to support your side.

-cgmckenzie

Again, sent from phone so forgive any typos please. I think I got most of them but autocorrect makes fools of us all

ElCheezus wrote:

Jidmah wrote:How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

There's no rules support for the vertical dimensions of area terrain. That's a quality that you're assuming exists becaue that's the only way your interpretation works. I've said this far to many times already, without any good, rules-supported reason for why it would have a vertical dimension.

Any good rules supported reason? How about the picture on pg. 83? This should establish that we are, in fact, playing a three dimensional game. Thus if you ever want to create a area(volume), you have to use two dimensional boundaries to define it, otherwise it would be a plane in which no model could ever be. The rules tell us the area of the the terrain is defined by the edges of the base. So either you take the edges as one-dimensional and would never have any area terrain at all, or they are two-dimensional and actually create a volume, just like rules describe. If the borders do not create a closed volume, it extends indefinitely. Slightly advanced geometry, really.

Refusing to see boundaries as two-dimensional breaks the game, and is simply being stubborn.

cgmckenzie wrote:In every instance in the BGB(apparently the 40k BRB) that bases are mentioned as belonging to vehicles, the rules say to ignore or otherwise disregard the base except in assaults. Every single time. There is no evidence to support your interpretation of the rules that the base is used to determine terrain status.

Because the BGB always says ignore bases AND talks about swimmers in terrain, all the evidence supports the idea of the hull being above counts as it being in terrain. Provide a rule that contradicts that and you migrant have a case but as it stands now, you reply have no evidence to support your side.l

This has been covered multiple times already.

Jidmah wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Jidmah wrote:How about the area terrain rules on pg. 13?

It clearly tells us that the area of the terrain is outlined by a boundary, and any model inside that area is inside the terrain. If you and your opponent decide to put an additional vertical boundary at 6"(replace with any number), that would still be perfectly fine with RAW, as anything above those 6" would not be inside the terrain. If you didn't, the area of the terrain would extend up(and down, if that ever matters) indefinitely. This makes vehicles test when driving through, any skimmers test when flying through and any infantry test, even if on the fifth floor of a ruin. No funky stuff. If you think it's unrealistic for any of the large skimmers to get immobilized when flying a mile above a forest, just define your terrain properly before the game. No need to change any rules.

There's no rules support for the vertical dimensions of area terrain. That's a quality that you're assuming exists becaue that's the only way your interpretation works. I've said this far to many times already, without any good, rules-supported reason for why it would have a vertical dimension.

Any good rules supported reason? How about the picture on pg. 83? This should establish that we are, in fact, playing a three dimensional game. Thus if you ever want to create a area(volume), you have to use two dimensional boundaries to define it, otherwise it would be a plane in which no model could ever be. The rules tell us the area of the the terrain is defined by the edges of the base. So either you take the edges as one-dimensional and would never have any area terrain at all, or they are two-dimensional and actually create a volume, just like rules describe. If the borders do not create a closed volume, it extends indefinitely. Slightly advanced geometry, really.

Refusing to see boundaries as two-dimensional breaks the game, and is simply being stubborn.

Yes, we're playing a three-dimensional game, which exactly why area terrain should have some description of it's third dimension. Instead, there is none. YOU KEEP ADDING A THIRD DIMENSION TO MAKE YOUR INTERPRETATION WORK, BUT THERE IS NO RULES SUPPORT FOR IT. Until you realize that the height of area terrain is only in your mind, there will be no more progress made here. It's born out of necessity from the weakness of your interpretation, nothing more.

This, too, I've said already. Repeatedly.

Honestly, I'm just bored with this whole discussion. You believe too blindly in three dimensional area terrain without reason, you take the rules about measuring to the hull of a skimmer out of context, and you don't consider the far reaching implications of the changes you've made to the rules. You perceive a weakness of your argument (lack of interaction with area terrain if you ignore the base) to be evidence that area terrain magically works the way you think it does. Plus, instead of moving the conversation forward at all, I'm forced to repeat arguments from pages and pages ago.

If I see any new arguments worth responding to, I'll be back. Until then, assume that I've already answered whatever "new" argument you have.

As has been pointed out many, many times in this forum, the rules is permissive. You need a rule that says the base is used for swimmers that will trump the vehicle/simmer rules that say you ignore the base. There is no such rule, but there are rules that demand ignoring the base.

Given that, and the fact that it talks about swimmers in terrain without a subsequent rule allowing the base to mean anything, shows that the hull being above terrain is the determining factor for it being in it, not the base.

You are not the lone voice of reason in the world. If this many people can keep providing solid evidence that you are wrong, you probably are.

Our side isn't changing rules at all, but I am curious as to these implications we are causing.

-cgmckenzie

Ps- again sent from phone. My phone refuses to let me write 'S K I M M E R'

ElCheezus wrote: Plus, instead of moving the conversation forward at all, I'm forced to repeat arguments from pages and pages ago.

Uh, no, actually, you're not. There's no prize for 'winning' a rules discussion here. If someone doesn't agree with your point, just repeating it isn't going to change their mind... you need to either find a different way of making the point, or accept that sometimes people will disagree with you regardless of how awesome you think your argument is.

If you're finding yourself getting irritated with the fact that someone disagrees with you, then yes, leaving the thread alone for a while is definitely the best option.

ElCheezus wrote:Yes, we're playing a three-dimensional game, which exactly why area terrain should have some description of it's third dimension. Instead, there is none. YOU KEEP ADDING A THIRD DIMENSION TO MAKE YOUR INTERPRETATION WORK, BUT THERE IS NO RULES SUPPORT FOR IT. Until you realize that the height of area terrain is only in your mind, there will be no more progress made here. It's born out of necessity from the weakness of your interpretation, nothing more.

Facts for you:
1) An n-dimensional object can never be within an object with less dimensions. A line can not be within a point, a square not within a line and a cube not within a square.
2) All models are three dimensional. This is even more well-defined for vehicles.
3) As per RAW models can be within area terrain.
=> area terrain must be at least three dimensional

There, hard proof for three dimensional area terrain.

Yes proof of 3d area terrain, but the boundaries of the terrain are still the boundaries of the terrain, and anything outside of that, above or too the side, are not affected because they are not in the area terrain, they are outside of it.

That (false) interpretation of boundaries as lines would make terrain two dimensional, don't you think? Which would in return make it impossible for any model to ever be inside it. Which is not what the rules say.

Back to an earlier example, a plane crossing the border of a country is still entering that country.

I really thought about posting the aeroplane example from earlier but couldn't fit it in. Thanks for giving is the actual physics reasons why it doesn't work. I fins that amusing.

I had some point but forgot it, so have the physics equation touched on above.

O= object. n=number if dimensions O occupies

V(On)=/= A(On-1) should read 'volume of object in n-dimensions cannot fit within area of object with n-1 dimensions'.

-cgmckenzie

Ps- aurocorrect and alcohol don't mix well. Sorry for whatever above post insinuates.

insaniak wrote:

ElCheezus wrote: Plus, instead of moving the conversation forward at all, I'm forced to repeat arguments from pages and pages ago.

Uh, no, actually, you're not. There's no prize for 'winning' a rules discussion here. If someone doesn't agree with your point, just repeating it isn't going to change their mind... you need to either find a different way of making the point, or accept that sometimes people will disagree with you regardless of how awesome you think your argument is.

If you're finding yourself getting irritated with the fact that someone disagrees with you, then yes, leaving the thread alone for a while is definitely the best option.

You're right, it's not about winning. I'd be fine if I were understood, but others disagreed with my conclusion. But the fact that I'm repeatedly asked to defend the same point makes it seem like I'm not being understood. I never had to repeat myself this much even when tutoring math to English majors.(har har, that's supposed to lighten the mood) My problem isn't disagreement, my problem is the sense of talking to a wall that's not even listening. If that's the case, it's not even "agree to disagree," which I can do, it's just a waste of breath. But, then again, maybe I'm just explaining myself poorly.

Jidmah wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Yes, we're playing a three-dimensional game, which exactly why area terrain should have some description of it's third dimension. Instead, there is none. YOU KEEP ADDING A THIRD DIMENSION TO MAKE YOUR INTERPRETATION WORK, BUT THERE IS NO RULES SUPPORT FOR IT. Until you realize that the height of area terrain is only in your mind, there will be no more progress made here. It's born out of necessity from the weakness of your interpretation, nothing more.

Facts for you:
1) An n-dimensional object can never be within an object with less dimensions. A line can not be within a point, a square not within a line and a cube not within a square.
2) All models are three dimensional. This is even more well-defined for vehicles.
3) As per RAW models can be within area terrain.
=> area terrain must be at least three dimensional

There, hard proof for three dimensional area terrain.

One of your assumptions is that the rulebook uses two three-dimensional concepts (models and area terrain) occupying the same space to be how it defines "in terrain." Since there is no actual definition of how it determines "in terrain," let's ignore that assumption for a minute. Bear with me.

If Area Terrain has volume, why is it called Area Terrain? Area is a property of two-dimensional objects. If it has volume, why isn't that mentioned? It's quite a jump to go from Area to Volume without the book saying so or at least explaining why. Other than your current assumption of how to determine "in terrain," there is nothing in the BRB that points to three-dimensional Area Terrain. Quite the opposite, it's very name implies two-dimensionality.

If Area Terrain is two dimensional (which it's name and definitions lead me to believe), we need a way of determining "in terrain." The definition of two three-dimensional objects occupying the same space doesn't work, because Area Terrain isn't three-dimensional.

pg 22, while not about vehicles, has a reference to being "in terrain." It mentions the base of the model as being what determines whether it's in or not.

So if we don't use your definition of "in terrain," do you see how Area Terrain must be two-dimensional? Remember, the book doesn't provide any definition or even a good indication of "in terrain," so my definition is as valid as yours, until we find contradiction. (we'll save that for later)

I'm sure that you are both rational dudes ... so explain your points and and maybe you can come to a conclusion. If not then...

flip a coin.

And REMEMBER ... The rules stated in the BRB are NOT set in stone. They are just GUIDELINES. As is stated in the BRB itself.

Just have fun!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record though...

I would ALWAYS say that any piece of the vehicle which can be clased as a vital component (excluding extra fuel/tires/ammo ect), and is in range of the weapon in question, can be fired upon.

ElCheezus wrote:One of your assumptions is that the rulebook uses two three-dimensional concepts (models and area terrain) occupying the same space to be how it defines "in terrain." Since there is no actual definition of how it determines "in terrain," let's ignore that assumption for a minute. Bear with me.

If Area Terrain has volume, why is it called Area Terrain? Area is a property of two-dimensional objects. If it has volume, why isn't that mentioned? It's quite a jump to go from Area to Volume without the book saying so or at least explaining why. Other than your current assumption of how to determine "in terrain," there is nothing in the BRB that points to three-dimensional Area Terrain. Quite the opposite, it's very name implies two-dimensionality.

Names don't define anything. A daemon hunter isn't a daemon either.
Everything in the ruins rules points towards three dimensional terrain and models. Otherwise ruins would not work on above ground level, which are, in fact, area terrain. Just looking at the pictures should be enough proof for three-dimensionality.

If Area Terrain is two dimensional (which it's name and definitions lead me to believe), we need a way of determining "in terrain." The definition of two three-dimensional objects occupying the same space doesn't work, because Area Terrain isn't three-dimensional.

pg 22, while not about vehicles, has a reference to being "in terrain." It mentions the base of the model as being what determines whether it's in or not.

This might be sufficient for infantry models, but Vehicles and Skimmers do not have a base for the purpose of moving. You referenced rule fails to solve the problem right there, as you ignore the difference between infantry and skimmer bases. A skimmer occupies the space of it's hull, while any infantry model occupies the area of it's base.

So if we don't use your definition of "in terrain," do you see how Area Terrain must be two-dimensional? Remember, the book doesn't provide any definition or even a good indication of "in terrain," so my definition is as valid as yours, until we find contradiction. (we'll save that for later)

The book doesn't. Geometry does. The BRB doesn't define stuff like "straight line" either. You also never disproved that boundaries are two-dimensional. I've already found contradictions in your rules, you just chose to ignore it. You may not use the skimmer base for anything but assault and disembarking or capturing objects for the large ones.

Sorry I am coming into this question late (and I didn't see this above), but I have a question. Why do most people believe wings are part of the hull? In my experiences, hulls are the bodies containing the crew and passengers.

My source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hull

"hull2    /hʌl/ Show Spelled
[huhl] Show IPA

–noun
1. the hollow, lowermost portion of a ship, floating partially submerged and supporting the remainder of the ship.
2. Aeronautics .
a. the boatlike fuselage of a flying boat on which the plane lands or takes off.
b. the cigar-shaped arrangement of girders enclosing the gasbag of a rigid dirigible. "

See definition 2 above. I do play that people can shoot at the wings as it makes sense that I need my wings to fly my craft. What seems unreasonable: trying to deploy from the wings.

I was just wondering.

That was answered somewhere around pg 2/3. I think we came to the conclusion that anything that isn't decorative(banners, antennae, guns, etc) is hull, so the wings are hull.

-cgmckenzie

Also note the tenets of YMDC, which prohibit dictionary definitions.

THe rulebook definess the hull by exception, essentially as anything that ISNT decorative or a weapon.

cgmckenzie wrote:That was answered somewhere around pg 2/3. I think we came to the conclusion that anything that isn't decorative(banners, antennae, guns, etc) is hull, so the wings are hull.

-cgmckenzie

My question wasn't what, but more why.

Basically because the BRB says so. It specifically excludes parts which are not hull, so everything else must be hull.

Jidmah wrote:Basically because the BRB says so. It specifically excludes parts which are not hull, so everything else must be hull.

It aactually makes reference to wings being ignored earlier on in the rulebook for line of sight purposes. It isnt mentioned in vehicles because honestly when the rulebook was written how many vehicles had wings?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also note the tenets of YMDC, which prohibit dictionary definitions.

THe rulebook definess the hull by exception, essentially as anything that ISNT decorative or a weapon.

Wow, had to read the tenets. Fine, let's throw out dictionary definitions. It can logical fallacy to assume something that isn't one thing IS, by default, something else. I don't want to rehash your agruements above, but It is difficult for me to continue my arguement, because I know what a hull is through my experiences as an engineer.

An exception in YMTC would be be if the rulebook defined a hull. Do you have a page number where I can review the "definition by exception" later at home (at work right now)?

Tomb King wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Basically because the BRB says so. It specifically excludes parts which are not hull, so everything else must be hull.

It aactually makes reference to wings being ignored earlier on in the rulebook for line of sight purposes. It isnt mentioned in vehicles because honestly when the rulebook was written how many vehicles had wings?

You might want to check that rule, rather than pulling it completely out of context. Wings are not part of the body when tracing LoS to infantry models (BRB pg. 16). If you want to stubborn-RAW that, wings would not count as part of the vehicle's body, which is irrelevant. You shoot the vehicle's hull, not its body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also note the tenets of YMDC, which prohibit dictionary definitions.

THe rulebook definess the hull by exception, essentially as anything that ISNT decorative or a weapon.

Wow, had to read the tenets. Fine, let's throw out dictionary definitions. It can logical fallacy to assume something that isn't one thing IS, by default, something else. I don't want to rehash your agruements above, but It is difficult for me to continue my arguement, because I know what a hull is through my experiences as an engineer.

An exception in YMTC would be be if the rulebook defined a hull. Do you have a page number where I can review the "definition by exception" later at home (at work right now)?

"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull(ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."(BRB pg. 56)

There you go.

The LOS rules against wings was for models of infantry and the like. The reasoning, as explained in the BGB, is that models shouldn't be penalized for having FABULOUS!!! wings/banners/guns. But for vehicles, it said that anything ornamental doesn't count for LOS, like antennae/flags/guns for some reason/banners hanging from titans. The how it is played most of the time, and is correct, is that anything that is needed for the vehicle to function counts as 'hull'. A general rule of thumb is 'if the vehicle cannot work at 100% capacity without this, I can shoot it'.

-cgmckenzie