Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello, there are constant discussions in my games whether or not Skimmers BLOS.
Supposedly, as the redshirts at the store explained it, when the skimmer stops moving it "lands".
Yet others state they don't as they are mounted on a flying base, and the True LOS rules apply to this.
Can someone please verify?

It's all true LOS.

The skimmer blocks LOS. But, you can see underneath it, so depending on heights and angles, you can see units behind it.

The Redshirt that says they land is wrong. They stay on the base. (I believe Tau have a vehicle upgrade that does let them land. And, if you're immobilized, you land. But, those are the only 2 times when you land.)

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Supposedly, as the redshirts at the store explained it, when the skimmer stops moving it "lands".

Yes. IE you can't hold the skimmer above the table and say "Oh look, it's hovering in the air." If he's trying to say you take the skimmer off the stands, then wrong. Only time you can remove the stand is if the vehicle is destroyed or immobilized.

Yet others state they don't as they are mounted on a flying base, and the True LOS rules apply to this.
Can someone please verify?

True.

Skimmers can block LOS the difference is that with the right angle you can see under it as opposed to a LR which you can't. That redshirt was obviously mistaken since the only time skimmers, flying or otherwise, come off there stand is that they are A) imobilised, B) Tau using their landing gear or C) destroyed. There may be more but you don't take it off at the end of your movement phase everytime.

Ok thanks for the verification. Does that mean though that the Tau FW can still do the fish of fury, as they can still see under the Devilfish?

They can shoot under the Devilfish if it does not land. Granted this is assuming they can draw LOS and they will most likely give a cover save. Keep in mind that the crisis suit builds are still much better.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Ok thanks for the verification. Does that mean though that the Tau FW can still do the fish of fury, as they can still see under the Devilfish?

You have to get down and actualy CHECK the los: if the stand is tall enough, probably.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Ok thanks for the verification. Does that mean though that the Tau FW can still do the fish of fury, as they can still see under the Devilfish?

Maybe, depending on how high the devilfish is, but the enemy will get a cover save if they need it. The point of the fish of fury was letting the fire warriors unload on an assaulty type enemy,with the devilfish preventing them from easily assaulting back, and if they decided to assault the devilfish instead, they'd be hitting on 6s against front armor. Meaning that in 5th edition, it's more a fish of general annoyance, rather than fury.

Portugal Jones wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Ok thanks for the verification. Does that mean though that the Tau FW can still do the fish of fury, as they can still see under the Devilfish?

Maybe, depending on how high the devilfish is, but the enemy will get a cover save if they need it. The point of the fish of fury was letting the fire warriors unload on an assaulty type enemy,with the devilfish preventing them from easily assaulting back, and if they decided to assault the devilfish instead, they'd be hitting on 6s against front armor. Meaning that in 5th edition, it's more a fish of general annoyance, rather than fury.

If the 'fish is high enough for the fire warriors to see under, it will probably also be high enough to allow full view of a similarly infantry-sized target. Why would it grant cover to the target in this case?

I would just use true LOS.Obviously a Stormraven or Valkerie isn't going to block it way up there^.But a Wave serpent or Falcon isn't up there^.It is at nearly board level.

True LOS, if you can see the target, you can shoot it, simple as.

They way its played at my FLGS is a friendly unit can shoot under a friendly skimmer with no cover save offered by the skimmer, however if an enemy unit shoots at a unit behind a skimmer they get cover.

I'm assuming is used that bc one the manager says so, and two one would be able to radio to a friendly skimmer, have the rise enough to get a shot off, then lower back to grant cover. Thats my idea anyway, I just play by the house rules.

willydstyle wrote:
If the 'fish is high enough for the fire warriors to see under, it will probably also be high enough to allow full view of a similarly infantry-sized target.

That is not a safe assumption by any stretch. You might only be able to draw LOS to the feet of the target unit.

As you can see from these pictures, a very slight elevation change in the fish is enough to make the target completely obscured. Discounting the fact that *feet* are not defined in the BRB as a part of a model's "body" and are thus not targetable, I think this illustrates fairly well that when shooting under a skimmer, since the "eyes" of a firing model are generally at the top of the model, you pretty much get to see *all* of an infantry-sized target or *none* of it. In the case of shooting something that is of different dimensions, you just have to go by what TLoS you have, of course.

willydstyle wrote:As you can see from these pictures, a very slight elevation change in the fish is enough to make the target completely obscured. Discounting the fact that *feet* are not defined in the BRB as a part of a model's "body" and are thus not targetable, I think this illustrates fairly well that when shooting under a skimmer, since the "eyes" of a firing model are generally at the top of the model, you pretty much get to see *all* of an infantry-sized target or *none* of it. In the case of shooting something that is of different dimensions, you just have to go by what TLoS you have, of course.

Actually the BRB says that weapons, wings and such don't count. The way I look at it (and this could be pure RAI) is that if it is over the base and no more than the height that model should be then you can draw LOS to it. I also don't think he meant put the fish right up next to the FW. Also what about the pathfinder who is prone? He could see no problem, but in the end true LOS is king.

The rulebook says that for line of sight to an infantry model, arms, legs, torso, and head count as the "body" and that you have to have line of sight to the body. I interpret this as *not* including feet and hands.

How to feet and hands not fit into the 'I can shoot it' category?

Anything but the weapons and decorative elements specifically labeled in the BGB are shootable. If you can see the foot/hand through cover, you can shoot the unit.

-cgmckenzie

willydstyle wrote:The rulebook says that for line of sight to an infantry model, arms, legs, torso, and head count as the "body" and that you have to have line of sight to the body. I interpret this as *not* including feet and hands.

Fine, you can see part of the legs but not the rest of the model. You can still shoot them, and they can still take a cover save.

Because hands and feet are not head, arms, torso, or legs, which are the parts in the BRB defined as targetable.

Hands and Feet are an extension of the leg/arm.Bases are a targetable feature,but this is generally only a concern if you put a Termy on a Dreadjknight base,to put scenery on.

Bases aren't targetable, they aren't the body. Are rulebook quotes still permissible on this forum?

If anything they are encouraged as you need to prove your point here. I don't think anyone is saying target the base. I think I came the closest and I said body parts over the base.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Hello, there are constant discussions in my games whether or not Skimmers BLOS.
Supposedly, as the redshirts at the store explained it, when the skimmer stops moving it "lands".
Yet others state they don't as they are mounted on a flying base, and the True LOS rules apply to this.
Can someone please verify?

Did he get his red shirt from Star Trek or GW? Because I'm not certain he's doing that right...most skimmers aren't even capable of just "landing". They're flying or they're crashed.

I believe so.



Maybe it is just house rules,but I p[lay it as if someone mounts a mdoal on a larger base,then the base is targetable.It means players can mount a carnifex tearing apart a rhino,using the Temple Of Skulls is a base(the raeson I made this rule),then the base is targetable,becasue it is unfair that you mount your modal on a base big enough for a trun 1 charge,but arn't penalized for poking all but the body out,so you can't see.

Fireknife wrote:They way its played at my FLGS is a friendly unit can shoot under a friendly skimmer with no cover save offered by the skimmer, however if an enemy unit shoots at a unit behind a skimmer they get cover.

I'm assuming is used that bc one the manager says so, and two one would be able to radio to a friendly skimmer, have the rise enough to get a shot off, then lower back to grant cover. Thats my idea anyway, I just play by the house rules.

How exploitable...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshot wrote:I believe so.



Maybe it is just house rules,but I p[lay it as if someone mounts a mdoal on a larger base,then the base is targetable.It means players can mount a carnifex tearing apart a rhino,using the Temple Of Skulls is a base(the raeson I made this rule),then the base is targetable,becasue it is unfair that you mount your modal on a base big enough for a trun 1 charge,but arn't penalized for poking all but the body out,so you can't see.

It's supposed to be mounted on the base it came with. That's just a whole new level of cheating.

Akroma06 wrote:If anything they are encouraged as you need to prove your point here. I don't think anyone is saying target the base. I think I came the closest and I said body parts over the base.

Deadshot quoted that bases are a targetable feature.

BRB page 16 wrote:Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms).

I don't think that the assumption that feet and hands are part of legs and arms, respectively, is a safe one, especially if other such "extensions" such as wings and tails are also excluded from being targetable body parts.

Deadshot wrote:I believe so.



Maybe it is just house rules,but I p[lay it as if someone mounts a mdoal on a larger base,then the base is targetable.It means players can mount a carnifex tearing apart a rhino,using the Temple Of Skulls is a base(the raeson I made this rule),then the base is targetable,becasue it is unfair that you mount your modal on a base big enough for a trun 1 charge,but arn't penalized for poking all but the body out,so you can't see.

Dioramas are really cool and a great opportunity to use your modeling skills to their fullest. However, a diorama isn't a playable model. Your friend needs to buy another Carnifex to use in games, and leave his cool model on the shelf for people to gawk at.

willydstyle wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:If anything they are encouraged as you need to prove your point here. I don't think anyone is saying target the base. I think I came the closest and I said body parts over the base.

Deadshot quoted that bases are a targetable feature.

BRB page 16 wrote:Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms).

I don't think that the assumption that feet and hands are part of legs and arms, respectively, is a safe one, especially if other such "extensions" such as wings and tails are also excluded from being targetable body parts.

But wings and tails tend to be really big parts mostly for aesthetics...

Most models have hands and feet, and they aren't huge, either. If someone said I couldn't shoot his guy because the BRB doesn't specifically say "hands and feet", I would probably call a judge.

But hands and feet are small, relatively insignificant parts, and aren't on the very specific list of body parts that can be targeted.

willydstyle wrote:But hands and feet are small, relatively insignificant parts, and aren't on the very specific list of body parts that can be targeted.

Next time your being shot at put your hand out in the open and see if they don't shoot at it?
Realism example aside it is just quite...weird to argue that the legs are fair game, the base is fair game, but the part inbetween the feet those are off limits.