What is the correct way of judging the firing arc of a flyer's guns up and down? I am thinking of a night/doom scythe in particular. The width of the arc I understand (45 degrees) but I recently had an opponent tell me that the firing arc was also 45 degrees from the horizontal also (i.e. up and down). Don't think this can be right or else the doom scythe couldn't fire at all, right? I had thought one could assume that the scythe was tilted down to shoot?

You'll find that in the vehicle shooting rules.
All weapons have a 45 deg vertical (up and down) arc, no matter how they're mounted.

Hm... That makes the area hit table with the Doom scythe severely limited then, right? It only has a twelve inch range for the starting point. Going to have a look at my model and figure out how this is possible...

All vehicles, particularly fliers, have the same problem.

It's basically 22.5 degrees up, 22.5 degrees down.

Yep... means you need to play better and smarter with your flyer opposed to stopping 2" from the target and shooting directly down at them. Most flyers have an 8" or so blindspot which 'crafty' players try to ignore and then argue when called out on it.

I find that a lot of players tend to conveniently forget firing arcs.

I went to a doubles tournament yestarday, and my partner and I took along a home made template for the 22.5 for that very reason. We were running a foot army with no flyers of our own, so it made quite a difference what units opposing flyers could shoot, heldrakes aside.

The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*. Either way it creates a blind spot right in front of the flyer.

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Spetulhu wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Yeah, there is no valid debate... the rulebook is quite clear.

nkelsch wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Yeah, there is no valid debate... the rulebook is quite clear.

Then whats the page for the 45* Vertical arc.

Fragile wrote:
Then whats the page for the 45* Vertical arc.

You just assume vertical is the same as the horizontal picture on page 72 - it's described the same way at least. 45 horizontal, 45 vertical.

The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Fragile wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Yeah, there is no valid debate... the rulebook is quite clear.

Then whats the page for the 45* Vertical arc.

Same page, the vertical arc is worded the same as the "normal" horizontal arc excepting that it has the word vertical.

If you are applying 45* both up and down you have a total of 90* which is not what the rules allow.

Fragile wrote:
The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Why is that a problem again?
Can a Land Raider right sponson point left through the tank?

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Why is that a problem again?
Can a Land Raider right sponson point left through the tank?

Sponsons do not have the 45*(horizontal) they fire in straight lines only, so not a good comparison.

A Valkyrie multilaser/Lascannon however cannot make full use of its 45* due to hull getting in the way.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Why is that a problem again?
Can a Land Raider right sponson point left through the tank?

Sponsons do not have the 45*(horizontal) they fire in straight lines only, so not a good comparison.

A Valkyrie multilaser/Lascannon however cannot make full use of its 45* due to hull getting in the way.

Again, not a "problem" and certainly not something that requires debate. There are likely dozens of models that can't traverse a gun through a 45 degree angle because the hull is in the way.

I wasn't debating, merely pointing out that the example provided was not one that falls under the discussed rule and providing an example that does.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I find that a lot of NERCON players tend to conveniently forget firing arcs.

Here is the real question to me:
Do you take the 0 degree point from the position of the weapon itself, or is it measured parallel to the ground?

In any case this rule just leads to something akin to modeling for advantage, and one done for understandable reasons. This sort of modeling isn't a question on how to alter the design to gain an advantage though, it is how to 'legally' position your model to avoid a crippling disadvantage. As the blind spot is directly limited to the length of the stem, and depending on the your answer above the tilt of the vehicle, it would be ridiculous to use anything other then the smallest legal length or the maximum amount of 'tilt' you could realistically put on the model. Anything else would be simply shooting yourself in the foot....

From the physical model - trace along the barrel, that is your "0"

It is still MFA, if you alter to reduce the disadvantage.

Flyers and their placement is tricky at best. The base should be ignored for this and that, but in reality that's really not an option until levitating models are invented.

Therefore we usually allow a bit of leeway in placement of the flyers and their firing arcs. Say the flyer has enough turning and movement to clearly allow shooting at a certain unit but there is rubble or whatever that disallows its stable placement. We would basically allow choosing a target that is within its arc of fire but physically place the flyer maybe couple of inches closer to the target unit that would actually bring the target out of the "official" firing arc. Since it's not like the flyer stops midair to fire you could instead imagine it fired its weapons while flying toward the said target. The flyer could also be imagined to be zooming a bit downward to allow deeper firing arcs. Anyway, this most probably isn't RAW but close enough given the constraints of the game and it has worked for us thus far.

For the record I think flyers are not a very successful addition to the game overall. And yes, I do play Necrons.

I'm just glad the Ork flyers have a natural downward mounting on their base.
Reduces the blind spot a lot, and not changes to the model made!

Nosferatu1001,
So using the smallest stem legally provided to a flyer is modelling for advantage?

I do understand what you are meaning though Nos, and that you are more likely addressing the 'tilt' part of the post, but I still am annoyed over that one rule for this very reason. It is modeling for advantage, to use the smallest stem allowed in order to decrease the 'dead zone' effect being discussed here, but that is what this rule forces the player to do. It would be completely unreasonable for an opponent to deny the flyer, using a legal stem and constructed to legal specifications, simply because it doesn't come with a large enough dead zone in front of it.

I didnt think the current flyers, oval based, came with different sizes of stem?

As such there is one size, and one size only.

This is different to the older flying bases, which had a couple of sizes.

Nosferatu1001,

Truthfully I do not know if they have standardized the flyer stem or not, I don't mess around with flyers for a range of reasons, but the fact still remains you can come across multiple different sized stems that have been reduced by Game Workshop at some point or another. From my understanding, there is no rule in existence that forces players to re-base their models whenever Game Workshop changes the design. If anything the consensus here seems to be the exact opposite, stating it is entirely legal to uses the base that comes with the original model regardless of what changes have been made to the newer models. So unless you are going to be forcing all of your opponents to re-base and re-stem their models, simply because Game Workshop is releasing different bases and stems, then the fact the newer models are being released with a more standardized stem changes nothing.

This rule still makes it silly to use anything other then the smallest stem legally available.

There has only ever been one size of base/stem used by flyers.
The large oval with stem. There are no different sizes.

Flying bases, used by skimmers come is several sizes, but despite their name are never used by flyers.

Truthfully, I do not know nothing about 'flyer stems' within the fifth edition rules and have little experience building fliers in any of the rule sets so first some questions:

As flyers are a sixth edition addition is it really possible to state there was a specifically designed stem for them prior?
Are there any rules in the Rule Book requiring us to re-base or re-stem obsolete units?
Has Game Workshop released an official rule stating we have to use X sized stems for flyers, even if other stems are available?

This is because the core of my point are the stems Grendel083 mentioned, regardless of what they are officially named. Prior to re-classification the models which would be turned into fliers where often skimmers of some type or another. I have seen many references to the fact these fifth edition models came with multiple choices for how long you wanted a stem, so these stems are clearly the legal choices being presented for that model and it was generally accepted as long as you placed the model somewhere between the smallest and largest stems, you where constructing the model in a legal fashion. Given that the general consensus is they are still legal builds even if they where constructed with older editions kits, I can not simply accept the argument that the stem is now 'illegal' simply because Game Workshop released an updated model that uses a different stem.

Though if I did over-look a rule requiring the model's to be re-based or to match the configuration provided in the newer kit's then please provide it to me.

I will give you this point though:
A review of the internet does show a lot of players out there holding to the mentality that the multiple choice of stems for one model means all models should be able to be put on any of the stems. This is clearly in error, as it is possible to point out that all fliers will come with a single stem designed for use with flyers. It does seem to be a misconception that is lingering from something within fifth that clearly wasn't carried over to sixth. Any flyers constructed using the new kit will have to the parts that came in the new kit, and swapping out for a smaller stem would be clear modeling for advantage.

However, my core question still remains:
Is there anything forbidding a player from using a model that was legally constructed from it's fifth edition kit?

None of the 6th edition Flyers were ever sold on a flight base (ie the clear one with varying height stems) - they've only ever been used with the oval base and flight stand (+ looking transparent stand). All the stands have been the same height.

No one is saying they need to be rebased, we're saying that there is no Flyer that came with anything other than the current flight stand (that has never varied in height).

 grendel083 wrote:
All vehicles, particularly fliers, have the same problem.

Heldrakes

Got to love the whole 'measure from the base' thanks to that Frequently Asked Question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rideld2,

Then why all the posts I have been able to find online stating that these models came with multiple stem's in fifth?

Again, no personal experience with fifth edition models here, so if I am in mistake that the kit came with multiple stems at least we know why. I have been taking my conclusions based on other peoples posts in this forum and others, all stating that a choice existed for these particular models. If this is in error then I guess the question of 'what about grandfathering in old kits like every says we should be doing?' is no longer relevant.

It's interesting... after reading this thread I went back and looked at the rule book... and you guys are right, the rules are pretty darn clear. Odd thing is I've never see anyone around these parts (and that's including several local tournaments in different towns, i.e. different TOs & gaming groups), even mention a downward firing arc limitation.

It is a very hard to find restriction, particularly if you are not using hull based weapons and are therefore used to the whole 'physically point and shoot' element. This is made a little worse by the fact the rule is berried within the section of the book detailing firing arcs, which I guess we should be happy about because it is at least in the right section of the book. The rule itself also causes you to quickly forget or discard it after reading, as it goes out of it's way to inform us that vertical angel is something we will rarely need to calculate. All in all, it looks as if it was a thumb-tacked on rule that was never given the consideration it deserves.

JinxDragon wrote:
Then why all the posts I have been able to find online stating that these models came with multiple stem's in fifth?

Are you sure they weren't talking about skimmers?
I believe the first actual flyer model was the Imperial Guard Valkyrie.
This came with the large oval and stem used by all flyers today.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rideld2,

Then why all the posts I have been able to find online stating that these models came with multiple stem's in fifth?

Again, no personal experience with fifth edition models here, so if I am in mistake that the kit came with multiple stems at least we know why. I have been taking my conclusions based on other peoples posts in this forum and others, all stating that a choice existed for these particular models. If this is in error then I guess the question of 'what about grandfathering in old kits like every says we should be doing?' is no longer relevant.

Which models? Which posts?
Find a valkyrie that came on a short stand.
Find a Stormraven that came on a short stand.
Neither of the Necron Flyers ever did.

None of those models ever had a choice. You've confused the flight stand (small clear plastic with varying heights) with the flyer base (large oval, transparent cross stand). The flight stand (comes with skimmers) does have varying height stands and people have posted about that asking about Devilfish and Wave Serpents since forever... but I've literally never seen a post talking about a Valkyrie on a flight stand. Ever.

JinxDragon wrote:
All in all, it looks as if it was a thumb-tacked on rule that was never given the consideration it deserves.

Why give consideration to things like rules that have a major impact on a prevalent unit type when you could be Forging meaningless buzzwords a Narrative.

They where talking about flyers in these situations, though what I now suspect is duel use of the term 'flyer stem' has me wondering if mistakes in communications have occurred due to that fact. One of the threads I do know for sure where talking about flyers happened several months ago on this very forum. I remember it because it was the thread which brought this very rule to my attention, which I then spread around much to the pleasure of flyer-hating players. The whole question of the 'dead zone' came up within that thread and it seemed commonly accepted that different sized stems where in use by flyers and that, as long as it was the stem that came with the kit, the player had a choice in what stem to use.

I also still have to ask:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

JinxDragon wrote:
They where talking about flyers in these situations, though what I now suspect is duel use of the term 'flyer stem' has me wondering if mistakes in communications have occurred due to that fact. One of the threads I do know for sure where talking about flyers happened several months ago on this very forum. I remember it because it was the thread which brought this very rule to my attention, which I then spread around much to the pleasure of flyer-hating players. The whole question of the 'dead zone' came up within that thread and it seemed commonly accepted that different sized stems where in use by flyers and that, as long as it was the stem that came with the kit, the player had a choice in what stem to use.

Like I said - you've confusing the "flyer stem" (the + looking piece) with the flight bases. I guarantee it.

I also still have to ask:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

They. Were. Never. Issued. With. Flight. Bases. (the clear ones)

How many times do I need to say that?

Caestus Assault Ram?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or What about the Thunderhawk Gunship? Have they always had the "flyer stem" (the + looking piece)?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Caestus Assault Ram?

Not familiar with it because it's forgeworld, but that's FW's issue and not really pertinent to the question at hand.

Or What about the Thunderhawk Gunship? Have they always had the "flyer stem" (the + looking piece)?

Pretty sure the Thunderhawk never was sold with any base, let alone the + piece or the clear flight stand.

JinxDragon wrote:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

Valkyrie, StormRaven, Razorwing, Ork Bomber (think that's all of them that were reclassified).
They always used large oval bases and flying stem.

I think ForgeWorld used to use a rod system, but that's not quite relevant. The Thunderhawk definitely never used a Flying base. It would crush it dust..
Caestus uses the same base as any other flyer.

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

Valkyrie, StormRaven, Razorwing, Ork Bomber (think that's all of them that were reclassified).
They always used large oval bases and flying stem.

I think ForgeWorld used to use a rod system, but that's not quite relevant. The Thunderhawk definitely never used a Flying base. It would crush it dust..
Caestus uses the same base as any other flyer.

'
Just imagine a manta on a flying base...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Just imagine a manta on a flying base...

Squish.

Soooooooo in relevance to the OP:

How do you rule the 45* Arc on the now **Flying** Thunderhawk that'll apear in all Escalations?
Edit: If it's **Flying** on no stand =P

Just like normal... Why would it get special treatment?

How does the horizontal/vertical arc apply to weapons that can move? For instance, a LR hull mounted heavy bolter can move side to side. Or the heavy bolters on the bastion have a slight movement too. What about flyer guns that can move up and down? Does this increase the arc? Do you move it to the desired angle, then measure arc?

The arc is for weapons that can't move. If it can move it can only shoot to the extent it can move.

rigeld2 wrote:
The arc is for weapons that can't move. If it can move it can only shoot to the extent it can move.

Which includes 45* up and down? (Say Bastion HB, or other weapons which might only pivot)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
This has got me thinking on how Flyer rules apply to thunderhawks or in general (Might need a new thread for this)

You measure all weapons LoS from barrels right?
Flyers may "Share" their base with other land units, and stand atop any terrain whatsoever right?

So technically the TH should be on a stand of some sort? and flyers cant shoot at each other behind Bastions? I see issues arising, especially since the TH would *not see* behind a hill, even though it's a flyer..?

Well, I just bumped a short-cut combo that ate my post.... yay.

Ridgeld2,

Well seeing you just stated the reclassified skimmers where never issued with a flight base which you then described as the clear one... I would say pretty good chance of confusion. Game Workshop has a very dangerous habit of using similar sounding terminology, if not identical terminology, and it always leads to these sort of problems when we talk about the rules in open forums. This is clearly no difference, a review of the Game Workshop store brings forth three different stem designs all classified as 'flying stem and base.' One is the clear X design, that I thought where the default base for flyers from this edition, the other two are the smooth rounded design with a see through base, seen used on a lot of non-flyer based models with just a base change. If they sell both as 'flying stems' is it really that surprising that confusion might exist as to which stem we are legally allowed to use for a flyer?

At this point the only way for me to conclude if the question I raised is valid would be to purchase any lingering fourth and fifth edition model kit's and confirm for myself. Given that it would take a deal of time, money and effort that I do not want to expend over this possible misunderstanding it is understandable that I chose not to do this. I still think the question is valid even if it is nothing more then a hypothetical as, to my knowledge, no rule exists giving us permission to force an opponent to use the stem designed for flyers simply because it is a flyer. Should someone be able to make a very good argument as to why they other stem's are just as valid, such as it being included in the kit to begin with should it have

It all seems to come down to using what came in the kit.

There were no older 4th ed flyer models.
The first reclassified skimmer was the Valkyrie, for 5th in 2009 and had a large oval base with stem, same as it has now.

a sabove.

You can just take our word for it, that anything which currently uses the + shaped stem have not used the round one. GW dont like redoing kits.

BlackTalos,
Can you quote for me the page which states a flyer can 'share it's base' with other units?

I know rules exist for models to stand underneath the flyer in question but this does not automatically translate to being able to share the same space as the model, or somehow stand on top of the the flyers base which is what I take away from your 'share' comment. From my understanding, the base is still considered part of the model even though many exceptions exist preventing us from treating it as such in a wide range of circumstances. To my knowledge, no such exception exists within the rule informing us that another model can stand underneath the flyer itself. This would force us to count the base as part of the model when it comes to seeing if a model is able to fit 'under the flyer,' and given the microscopic space we have to utilize it is not something easily proved.

Though, again, I am a little unsure right now so is there any rule I over-looked that prevents the base from being part of the model for the purpose of standing a model underneath it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nosferatu1001,

If I do have to 'just take the word for it' from anyone, I would rather it be Rideld2, Grendel083 or yourself. I do not always agree with your conclusions but I trust your ability to research the topic far more then a good chunk of the others here, including the regulars. If you three are willing to state that the X shaped flyer base, I think that is the right one, is the only base provided with official flyers then that is an answer I can accept. I still have some doubt, but that is more because I do not trust Game Workshop not to screw that up then any thing you three could address. We shall just sum all this up as a mis-understanding caused by Game Workshop's inability to clearly separate it's terminology in a way that doesn't allow duel or interchangeable terms.

Sometimes I find their lack of clear terminology to be fun but other times it is just annoying.

Their consistency is quite annoying.
Too consistent at times, not changing terminology between editions. Not consist at enough at other times.

They have flying bases, then the bring out flyers that don't use them. But the name remains...

i am referring P80: Models that physically fit under a Flyer model (I read "on it's base") can move beneath it. Likewise, a Flyer can end its move over such models.

So unless you want to put your flyer stand on top of marine heads, they share the base.
So how does a thunderhawk do this?

I'll create a new thread with a better worded question =)

Under the flyer =/= on its base. You can place a model underneath the bits of the flyer that hang over the edge of the base.

Same page, slightly higher: "The base of a Flyer is effectively ignored, except when:"

And none of the 2 exceptions say anything about models under it.

There is no Rule in book stating a unit cannot share a base with others? Or state one or a page if there is?

The FAQ saying you cannot move through other models, and a model occupies the area of its base...

This is where your problem is:
The two rules are in two completely different sections, signifying they are different sub-rules, over a larger rule-set.

The first section, which contains the ignore except for these two exceptions, are all about measuring to the unit. It is a restriction designed to prevent a player from claiming the flier is withing X when only the base is within X. A rule preventing a player from making that measurement, and therefor using it to trigger a rule, effectively kills such scenarios without having to find a way to actually levitate the models. The exceptions that exist are both designed for situations where measuring to the hull might actually be impossible, or at least very implausible, and it ends up breaking some element of the game. One for assaults, which they clearly wanted to be a big threat to hovering flyer's in order to make it a dangerous tactical decision to remove the Hard to Hit restrictions. The second is for disembarking, which literally would be impossible without an exception stating you have permission to measure to the base. After all the rule states the model has to be placed in contact with the access point to begin with and it is still debatable if wobbly model syndrome covers 'hovering in mid air cause a rule ignored gravity and now I must too.'

The second section would also need to contain a similar exception when it comes to being able to 'place' the model, which is lacking.

Now let me point out something interesting about the inclusion of the one inch bubble: without such a restriction it becomes possible to argue the flyer can end it's turn in base contact with an enemy or at least smack bang in the middle of an entire unit. This is because the the rule states outright a model can end it's turn under a flyer, proving it can fit. I bold those words because that is the permission that could be evoked to get around the 1 inch bubble, as it is possible for an enemy model to fit under a wing with a 0.5 inch clearance. If there was no mention to the 1 inch bubble, then it leads to all sorts of situations that are broken and I won't need to go into detail with them much. Needless to say, locked in combat rules triggering on a zooming flyer to prevent it's movement phase would be hilarious....

So sorry, it is not an exception to some 'continue to ignore the base' clause and players still need to prove the model can fit underneath the base if they want to end their turn there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The FAQ saying you cannot move through other models, and a model occupies the area of its base...

I would actually quote this as an answer: If you can physically fit without being "through" it, why not?

I understand there is no rule about "you can be on it's base", but there is no rule about "you Can't be on it's base"?

The only example I can use from memory is the Hirophant Tyranids Bio-titan that sits on a square base aprox 10" by 10", which i suppose most people place over other models?

I'm not advocating truth, just asking if anyone has a clear statement of rules that i can't move a model onto my Flyer's base (effectively we can ignore the 1" bubble for enemy models here)

 BlackTalos wrote:
Same page, slightly higher: "The base of a Flyer is effectively ignored, except when:"

And none of the 2 exceptions say anything about models under it.

There is no Rule in book stating a unit cannot share a base with others? Or state one or a page if there is?

Read the header for the passage you're quoting instead of taking it as a blanket statement.

and looking through the same FAQ:

Q: Are models free to move underneath a Swooping Flying
Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: Yes, though enemy models must finish their move at least
1" away from the Flying Monstrous Creature’s base.

= Yes you can fit under your fmc UNLESS you are an enemy.

Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
Read the header for the passage you're quoting instead of taking it as a blanket statement.

Flyers and measuring

Do you not measure in the movement phase too? =P

BlackTalos,

One of the things you will quickly learn here is that these rules use a permissive based format. Therefore, it is not possible to even ask a question like 'there is no rule about you can't be on it's base?' Unless the request for a rule proving a negative is in direct contest to an already existing permission, it is impossible to actually prove or disprove the negative. Permission based never write about what they out-right disallow, but they go ahead to inform us what they allow and if any exceptions to that allowance exists.

Hence the line: Find me a section in the book where it says I can not just punch my opponent, smash his models, and declare legal victory?

General permissions for moving a model do exist, that would be the base of any argument stating you can place a model on top of another model. The issue with this idea is the restriction stating we can not move a model through another model, or any way place it with the bases over lapping, without precise permission to do so. Some permissions do exist for fliers, as I before explained the fact the one inch bubble is written into the rule is to prevent some broken situations that come from this. The issue with the precise permission in question is the word under, in that placing the friendly model above the base does not fit the requirements for it to be in a legal position as per the flyer rule itself.

- measuring -

Measuring a distance to see if it is legal and the placement of a model are two completely different things. Just because measurement is done before you prove the legal placement does not make the whole movement action some sort of 'measurement.' Ignoring the most obvious fact the two are different, I will focus on a little example from within this section of the book which makes the conclusion that movement is measurement very confusion. There is permission for me to go back and re-measure, or even decide not to move the unit at all after that point. However this very same section informs us once the model has moved it can not be returned to it's original position, that movement is final. If the whole movement action is 'measurement' then I could evoke the first part of the rule to break the second part of the rule, or evoke the second part of the rule to state the first part is the 'order to move' and can't be reversed.

Therefore the argument that measurements are done as part of movement, so the base has to be ignored, will only lead you to the conclusion that you can not do any of your per-measuring from the base. The physical movement of the model itself will still require us to obey all standing restrictions preventing us from placing a model underneath the base. The only outcome would be to force a player to make all measurements from the hull to the new location and that doesn't actually change anything. After all we don't measure to from where the hull is to where the base will be, that wouldn't be ignoring the base. We would be required to measure where that part of the hull would be, or technically any part of the hull if you have permission to rotate it after movement. It is just a coincidence that it ends up putting the base in the same position as if you had measured from it in the first place more times then not.

BlackTalos - no, *anyone* can fit under a FMC or Flyer. However you must, if an enemy, stay 1" away from the base / hull of the model.

You have no rule saying you CAN move over the base, so you cannot

I'll just go back to my example of the Hierophant, or say any large model such as titans. Would you then leave a 12" by 12" gap in your army where the hierophant is? or just place it above your Tyranid horde?

I know i would pick the latest, although i have never seen one of them played.

In the same way, i do believe Flyers are above other units, almost treated as a ruined building level, and would place it above, or other units below it.
Two models can share the same location if above each other in a ruin, so if your flyer is on another level on top?

Again: are they ON YOUR BASE?

If yes: illegal placement. No question
If no: thats ok, as long as if anenemy model you are also not within 1" of hull / base

You are confusing "beneath" with "beneath, on the base"

A hierophant, on a large base, doesnt get to have models underneath it. A warhound titan, with no base, can easily have other models underneath it.

I'd quote the rulebook but i'm not at home. It introduces the Flyers as saying they're on a base that "suspends them above the battlefield" somewhere, so having it hanging on a pole from a string would be "more adequate" but less feasible. That's how i see those flyers =S

ALso breaks the rules which requires you to use the base supplied with the model.

P80: Models that physically fit under a Flyer model can move beneath it. Likewise, a Flyer can end its move over such models.

Use the Stormtalon for this, the model has nothing "sticking out" of it's base (like a marauder would) and no where does this rule say "only applies OFF the model's base.

Until it is FAQed i don't see why anything can't "physically fit under a" Stormtalon

Edit: Oh and the "Flyer can end its move over such models" wouldn't be said if you consider Stormtalon & Landraider for e.g.

CAN end its move. NOT "can ALWAYS" end its move.

Again: they have FAQd that (like in previous editions) you dont get to mvoe over other models bases. THats it.

I'm still waiting for proof that another model can fit underneath the flyers base , needed before this rule can be evoked in the first place.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are confusing "beneath" with "beneath, on the base"

Sums it up right there. Beneath means under the wing, under the nose, under the tail, under the hull, under any point that isn't on the base. You may never put one model on top of another model's base, or on top of any vehicles hull, in any situation. Otherwise i'd just stack 6 rhinos on top of each other and come at you like totem pole.

 deviantduck wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are confusing "beneath" with "beneath, on the base"

Sums it up right there. Beneath means under the wing, under the nose, under the tail, under the hull, under any point that isn't on the base. You may never put one model on top of another model's base, or on top of any vehicles hull, in any situation. Otherwise i'd just stack 6 rhinos on top of each other and come at you like totem pole.

Someone needs to make that.

 deviantduck wrote:
You may never put one model on top of another model's base, or on top of any vehicles hull, in any situation. Otherwise i'd just stack 6 rhinos on top of each other and come at you like totem pole.

I would indeed like to see that one day =P

But in no way is this applying to "all vehicles" and "all bases". I am restricting this question to "flight stands" which could *almost* be described as "not a base", even if it's nit-picking...

This FAQ:Q: Are models free to move underneath a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: Yes, though enemy models must finish their move at least1" away from the Flying Monstrous Creature’s base.

Would arise from the question "but FMC have normal bases, not Flight stands?" which would lead to them answering "yes" you can fit underneath it. As FMCs usually don't "outgrow" their base by much this is really a base question, not a -wingtip, flail, head, arm- sticking out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why would they say "must finish their move at least 1" away" from the base if not implying other model CAN finish their move under it? "free to move underneath"

If you think FMCS don't overgrown their bases you've not seen a current Flyrant or any of the Demons who use Balrog wings.

Seriously.

BlackTalos,

They can finish their move under the base... providing they fit.

JinxDragon wrote:
BlackTalos,

They can finish their move under the base... providing they fit.

Which means that not a single model can move under any GW standard Daemon Prince or BT.

Sorry in advance if we're not supposed to link other forums, but I've researched it a bit and this came up:

http://www.40kforums.com/vb/showthread.php/39540-Of-Flyer-Bases-and-assaults
and here:
http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?s=5d494b7c57b6ff1ba533a5e938e489f3&t=115770&page=2

If you have a quick read through both posts it just makes sense as is.

You can assault a unit underneath a flyer and the base is ignored because it is zooming.

This comes to mind, and the issue raised:

Turn 3. Your orks want to assault my Sisters squad, but i put my flyer right in front. You can't charge my squad because you'd be 1" away from the flyer.
I consider that cheating really, but i suppose RAW would mean as much =/



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Q: Are models free to move underneath a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: Yes, though enemy models must finish their move at least1" away from the Flying Monstrous Creature’s base.

And again: why this FAQ?
*Swooping* specifically.
So you mean to say you can't fit a marine under it's wing when it's gliding?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Q: Are models free to move underneath a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: Yes, though enemy models must finish their move at least1" away from the Flying Monstrous Creature’s base.

And again: why this FAQ?
*Swooping* specifically.
So you mean to say you can't fit a marine under it's wing when it's gliding?

Using your Orc v Sisters example.

You would be unable to charge the Sisters squad on your turn. On their turn they can move under the Flyer and close distance with the Orcs to drop some holy Promethium on their faces. The Flyer then decides to zoom or hover.

I swoop my Flyrant in directly front of a Tervigon. Without that FAQ the Tervigon would have to go around - because of the FAQ, however, the Tervigon can move directly forward "under" the Flyrant.

Selym,

Notice the key word there was finish as no model is allowed to end their movement superimposed inside another model. Even if a player can find a Special Rule granting permission to move 'through' or 'under' the model in question, the rule would still need to address the whole 'superimposed' problem if the player wants to try and evoke it to end the movement occupying the same space as another model. Interestingly; without a special rule granting permission a model is not even allowed to end it's turn underneath another model, which is more evidence that Game Workshop doesn't write rules with the third dimension in mind. So simply being able to fit something small under the body of a skimmer is still not a legal move, it would need a rule granting permission to end it's movement there.

This Frequently Asked Question does not inform us that a model may end it's movement superimposed into another model, only that it may move underneath another model as part of that movement.

JinxDragon wrote:
Selym,

Notice the key word there was finish as no model is allowed to end their superimposed inside another model even if they have permission to move 'through' or 'under' the model in question. Interestingly; without a special rule granting permission a model is not even allowed to end it's turn underneath another model. So simply being able to fit something small under the body of a skimmer is still not a legal move, it would need a rule granting permission to end it's movement there.

This Frequently Asked Question does not inform us that a model may end it's movement superimposed into another model, only that it may move underneath another model as part of that movement.

Ah, soz.

JinxDragon,

But in that exact case, your space marine fitting on the Flyer's base is not superimposed, is it? and technically not an illegal move then?

And again to refer to fitting a grot under a land speeder: only Flyers benefit from a specification which is "Models that physically fit under a Flyer model" etc rule. So we can yet again not refer to skimmers.

Rigeld2,

i see, but i would personally find that completely illegal, a plane (in my example this is a zooming only Avenger) blocking a charge from the orks? The two links i posted come up with a clear decision that "when charging ignore the flyer's base" which makes sense.
Even if i'm the sisters player in this case, it would really seem completely underhanded.

A stormtalon going into hover mode, yes, the tactic would be understandable, but a jet-fighter? It just seems wrong...

 BlackTalos wrote:
Rigeld2,

i see, but i would personally find that completely illegal, a plane (in my example this is a zooming only Avenger) blocking a charge from the orks? The two links i posted come up with a clear decision that "when charging ignore the flyer's base" which makes sense.
Even if i'm the sisters player in this case, it would really seem completely underhanded.

A stormtalon going into hover mode, yes, the tactic would be understandable, but a jet-fighter? It just seems wrong...

You have to end your movement more than 1" away from the base. If my sisters squad is touching the base it's literally impossible for you to charge.
How is that illegal?

Because it's a Flyer, who, apart from shooting at/shot at has no interactions with what's happening on the ground. (disregard hover types)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, just checked through the Tenets for YMDC, and i am arguing this in HYWPI, not RAW, as raw is clear that charge is not possible...

Again:
If a model is standing on top of another model, as the base is part of another model, is it fully underneath that model?

But the base is not "part" of the model, the BRB clearly says that things like adding cover or height on your base is not changing the model. You use the base for various measurements, but not for the flyer.

Anyway, this is getting too deep with no rules to back anyone up really.... I believe Flyer's bases do not interact with the battlefield below in any way apart fro 1" to an enemy, and unless it Hovers, and nothing here has proved this different by RAW.

Not saying this is correct, just my interpretation which has not be proved wrong.

While there are some rules stating the base is ignored, for measuring purposes, this does not magically stop the base from being part of the model. This is because, right back on page 3, is a caption box explaining models and base sizes. It begins by stating that rules in the Rule Book are written with the assumption that every model is using the base that came within the kit. It does grant you permission to use other bases, in situations where the original kit had unusual or missing bases, but you must use a base of a suitable size for this purpose. While it doesn't seem to be a rule proclaiming to some sort of sequence or event, it is a paragraph that can be quoted to show that the base is an integral part of the model required by the rules themselves. At this point you need to provide us with a rule that clearly states out-right that the base is not part of the model in question, not just that it is ignored in certain situations. Until then you are constantly going to find people in opposition as the base is considered part of a model, and therefore you can not end your move on top of another model's base without express permission to do so.

I think I might of misplaced a rule though, can someone point me to which page the restriction preventing you from ending your turn underneath, superimposed-with or on-top of another model?

 BlackTalos wrote:
But the base is not "part" of the model, the BRB clearly says that things like adding cover or height on your base is not changing the model. You use the base for various measurements, but not for the flyer.

Anyway, this is getting too deep with no rules to back anyone up really.... I believe Flyer's bases do not interact with the battlefield below in any way apart fro 1" to an enemy, and unless it Hovers, and nothing here has proved this different by RAW.

Not saying this is correct, just my interpretation which has not be proved wrong.

... except it has. Your interpretation directly conflicts with examples that have been presented, repeatedly.

JinxDragon, i believe the only one is from the BRB FAQ Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10) A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules.

Then, on P47: Jump Units: "Jump models cannot end their move on top of other models (...)"

Then, on P83: Skimmers: " (...)can move over friendly models and enemies, but they cannot end their move on top of either."

BUT Flyers, P80: Models that physically fit under a flyer MODEL can move beneath it. Likewise, a flyer can end IT'S move OVER such models.


It's really a bit of an obvious choice for most words.

& Rigeld2, you still haven't found the Page telling me I can't put stuff on my flyer base, no...

Common sense as above points quite a lot as to the fact they planned it so.


1.Models can't move through others
2.Jump troops can't sit on others
3. Skimmers can't sit on others
4. Flyer Can sit above stuff

How much clearer to make it?

Permissive rule set - you've quoted literally no rules allowing you to stand on another model's base.

Alright, I'm confused. What does (not) being able to move onto a flyer base have to do with firing arcs?

 Happyjew wrote:
Alright, I'm confused. What does (not) being able to move onto a flyer base have to do with firing arcs?

I think it's called Derailment....

Indeed it was... Both have been answered now so the thread can drop anyway

I wonder if there is anywhere that you can buy a simple shooting arc template... be handy for judging placement of fliers etc... especially doom scythes...

You can. It's called a square of paper, folded in half across the diagonal.

 grendel083 wrote:
You can. It's called a square of paper, folded in half across the diagonal.

Good thinking

Simple Pythagoras theorem?

Height of the weapon: H

Minimum range= TAN(90-22.5°) x H = 2.414 x H

So if your weapon is 5" Heigh, your min range is 12.1"

Yes. I'm imagining something transparent, with a line through the middle to be lined up with the gun's barrel, so that one can see affected models though it from above or side on.

Thanks for the suggestion. Folding up a bit of A4 (which I do a fair bit) is quite messy - excess at the end makes it floppy and tricky to place, you still have to judge the angle you are holding it at in relation to the barrel etc. I could make one pretty easily I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nice math. Is that assuming the height that you are aiming at is ground height though? Because surely it is to the model's head/roof? (1"-2"? or even more sometimes).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or the ground if it is a Doom Scythe's death ray, I guess.

Obviously it would change, say Hills, if you're on buildings etc, but i'ts a quick "Minimum range" you can measure to =p

 BlackTalos wrote:
Simple Pythagoras theorem?

Height of the weapon: H

Minimum range= TAN(90-22.5°) x H = 2.414 x H

So if your weapon is 5" Heigh, your min range is 12.1"

If you weapon is 5" off the ground, the min range is 10.

Show calculations

 BlackTalos wrote:
Show calculations

Most models are about 2" tall

So really it's less than 7.5"

This confirms why I need to build myself this thing, or at least do the measurements... I guess a riptide gets hit if you're base to base.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Show calculations

Most models are about 2" tall

So really it's less than 7.5"

I'd calculate that 8.5" assuming the model is 1.5" (cause you need to see a bit more that just the plume on the helmet =P)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kholzerino wrote:
This confirms why I need to build myself this thing, or at least do the measurements... I guess a riptide gets hit if you're base to base.

If you base to base i'd bet your guns are actually pointing at his face...

But 8.5 from the gun, or 8.5 from ground level directly below the gun?

Oh, 8.5 from the Gun's location on the ground to the target.

I thought i used COS the first time i'd though about this:

From the Gun to the target:

Range = 3.5" / COS(67.5) = 9.15" So a bit more due to the inclination


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or, if you want the *Apply to all* :

Divide the height from the model, to the gun by 0.3827 (Which is COS(90°-22.5°) )