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, in the last game against a friend, he moved and put a supersonic flyer with the front straight against and touching a wall of a GW building Sanctum Imperialis, i've got only a small part of the wing in LOS and so i took my shots and he cover saved a few with the 4+ obscured CS.

After that in his next movement phase we've got a problem cause (and here is my opinion/question) zooming flyers, after pivot up to 90 degrees, must move at least 18" in straight line (pg 80 rulebook 6th, i've just bought the 7th still not read flyer section) so: if the flyer would not pivot all the 90 degrees left or right, it was always going to go through the wall with some part of the model with the straight line, and cause the wall is impassable, cannot move up to 18" and get Wrecked (always pg 80), he told me that the flyers are "up from the ground" so the straight line can start from above the model but if the straight line was above why could he had the cover save? The model is where the model is, i think (am i wrong?).

In this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/553183.page#
reading Peregrine comment, made me notice that the "flyers are always above terrain" rule from the 5th ED is no more, so i think that the flyer can take the Cover Save but must pivot all the 90 degrees to avoid smashing on the wall.

What do you think about? I didn't like all this "ruletalk" at the game (lot of time lost) but also in a friendly/common sense way, the scene was pretty sad for me, with a flyer teleporting inches up from the ground at the start of its next movement phase with the beginning of his straight move ahead over the building to avoid a crash against the wall that was already touching with the most of the model front.

(i've done a pretty bad paint pic to help explain the thing, the red lines from the green arrow was my LOS of the flyer, the light blue cross was the point of contact of the model with the building)

Thank you for any answer

Iirc zooming flyers ignore terrain. If it would be difficult to leave the model where it needs to be, WMS comes into play.

Remember that those are models. In reality, a flyer would not stop every few minutes (or hours...) when the pilot "finishes his turn". In 40k, at the end of your turn, time "freezes". At the end of moving, the flyer might just as well be about to pull up.

Your friend is right, the flyer just flies over the building no matter how tall. Other than Wobbly Model Syndrome, Terrain does not affect flyers in a negative way (other than providing other models cover saves). Impassible, difficult, dangerous, they can fly it over it all with no problem.

As Sig said, just imagine that the Flyer pulls up and flies over the building before dropping back down if required. Or just imagine that it was flying above it the whole time.

if it's flying high above how can he get the cover save for being exactly touching it 5" from the battleground? in any other position, even 2 inches away it was not in cover.

i think i need to be more specific cause i don't know if i'm explaining the scene right: there was NO space between the model and the middle floor of the building, it was like a rhyno pushing an aegis defence line.

if you are telling me that a flyer can be considered in two places at a time for rules like:
- it is in the place of the model for targeting LOF
- but anywhere above for movement (so it ignores any terrain or building)
so i understand and i will keep in mind it for the future, i was giving too much importance to the rule stated "move only in straight line" and wrong-adding "from the model"

thank you very much ^___^

I don't get what you're saying, it's always in one spot.

Frankenstar,
Welcome to an abstract system where Rule interactions do not always make sense from a narrative point of view.

The flyer is not in 2 places at once. You use the models position for true line of sight and cover. When moving a flyer you ignore terrain and intervening models. Is the wall terrain or an intervening model? If so the flyer ignores it when moving. It doesn't move over it or under it, it simply ignores it, because the rulebook tell us to.

There are no rules for flyers crashing into terrain. The rules cover in which way the model may move (explictly over whatever is in the way) and the requirements for where it can be placed. Incidentally, that is where requirements for the model physically fitting are on the books.

The reason fliers can get cover from terrain - even though they are considered flying over everything - is that 40k works with true line of sight. Figuring out what a flier can see and shoot and what can shoot at it would be a real hassle if you had to measure to an assumed spot somewhere above the table or hold a marker up there to check LOS.

I get what you are saying, dude.

You just have to come to a conclusion with your friend before your next game. Kind of like you agree upon terrain cover saves and what not.

I would say come to a gentlemen's conclusion of I would say either it never gets it because It's flying high, or it gets it but can't fly through the building, or you could say that it gets it but has to pass dangerous terrain like a tank would. The dangerous terrain test could be if he pulls up on time or something.

Because the way I understand it: the rules for cover state that the plane gets cover, and the rules for movement state that the flyer flies above everything. So a plane flying its nose into a building then all of a sudden flying across it isn't forging a huge narrative. Unless you forge so hard that the plane is flying low then pulls up at the last second before he crashes. Or he hits the wall of the building and takes a terrain check with a negative modifier. But that would require some heavy forging and patchwork on the rules.

Best of luck! Hopefully my post has been of some help.

Great, now i think i understood the working around the True Line of Sight, the flyer model could have a 1 meter taller stand and still find a position to be in cover with the TLOS but it would be ugly to check everything on a model like that.

Perfect, all the "forging a narrative" went to my head! Now it's solved, thank you all for the kind answers!

 Frankenstar wrote:
Great, now i think i understood the working around the True Line of Sight, the flyer model could have a 1 meter taller stand and still find a position to be in cover with the TLOS but it would be ugly to check everything on a model like that.

Didn't understand that.

"A Zooming Flyer can move over intervening units and impassable terrain exactly as a Skimmer. In addition, a Zooming Flyer does not have to take Dangerous Terrain tests even if it starts or stops over difficult, dangerous or impassable terrain."

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Frankenstar wrote:
Great, now i think i understood the working around the True Line of Sight, the flyer model could have a 1 meter taller stand and still find a position to be in cover with the TLOS but it would be ugly to check everything on a model like that.

Didn't understand that.

The game grants flyers the permission to ignore terrain, as the rulebook would say to reflect the flyer actually moving freely above the battlefield. That is where the 1 meter flight base comes from. Of course there are no such bases and the offical models are only a few inches higher than skimmers. Which is both an advantage (TLOS cover saves for the flier) and disadvantage (TLOS cover for others).

The rules are very clear, no crashing into terrain is possible, not agreement or HIWPI needed.

Not sure it matters to the thread, but wouldn't the cover save be a 5+? Can a flyer claim to be "in" ruins? In this case its impassable so surely not.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Not sure it matters to the thread, but wouldn't the cover save be a 5+? Can a flyer claim to be "in" ruins? In this case its impassable so surely not.

It's a vehicle, so it's more about the front being covered.

Is the vehicle obstructed? Yes.
What's obstructing LoS to the vehicle? Ruins.
What save does Ruins provide? 4+.

Ah yes the front being covered would make it 4+.

The obscuring terrain would NOT make it 4+ as in 7th you have to be 'in' the terrain to get the bonus

More importantly, the rulebook states that a vehicle obscured by ruins (enough to get a cover save) gets a 4+ save, even though infantry obscured by ruins would only get a 5+ save (per the 5+ save list in the main rulebook).

rigeld2 wrote:
Is the vehicle obstructed? Yes.
What's obstructing LoS to the vehicle? Ruins.
What save does Ruins provide? 4+.[/quote

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Ah yes the front being covered would make it 4+.

The obscuring terrain would NOT make it 4+ as in 7th you have to be 'in' the terrain to get the bonus

This is not quite correct.

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."(The shooting phase section, Cover Saves sub-section).

If you are hidden or obscured by terrain you are in cover.

" At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover" (Vehicles section, Vehicles in cover sub-section).

So if the vehicle is 25% or more hidden or obscured by terrain it is in cover.

"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or is otherwise hit by an enemy shooting attack that inflicts damage upon it (such as being hit by a weapon with the Graviton special rule), it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)." (Vehicles section, Vehicles in cover sub-section).

Here is shows us that a vehicle in cover behind a Ruin would in fact get the 4+ cover save provided by the ruin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 don_mondo wrote:
More importantly, the rulebook states that a vehicle obscured by ruins (enough to get a cover save) gets a 4+ save, even though infantry obscured by ruins would only get a 5+ save (per the 5+ save list in the main rulebook).

Infantry gets a 4+ from ruins, why would it be a 5+?

The bonus for ruins is only if you are in it. It affects vehicles and infantry the same AFAIK

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The bonus for ruins is only if you are in it. It affects vehicles and infantry the same AFAIK

What bonus for ruins?

Ruins give a 4+ Cover save.

If you are in, or sufficiently obscured by ruins you receive a 4+ cover save...

Re read the terrain section. The special effects for ruins only apply if you are in it. Merely obscured provides a standard 5+ save.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Re read the terrain section. The special effects for ruins only apply if you are in it. Merely obscured provides a standard 5+ save.

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."
No, no that's not correct given the above rules quote. Being obscured by == being in.

rigeld2 wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Re read the terrain section. The special effects for ruins only apply if you are in it. Merely obscured provides a standard 5+ save.

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."
No, no that's not correct given the above rules quote. Being obscured by == being in.

100% this, rig has it correct.

It actually equates obscured by cover with being in that cover.

So if you are on open ground but sufficiently obscured by a ruin, that model would get a 4+ cover save as that is what a ruin provides.

Except for the fact that we have a specific statement in the cover section that being obscured by ruins grants a 5+ cover save. Check the list of stuff that gives a 5+ cover save, ruins is in that list.

 don_mondo wrote:
Except for the fact that we have a specific statement in the cover section that being obscured by ruins grants a 5+ cover save. Check the list of stuff that gives a 5+ cover save, ruins is in that list.

Have you seen the section on ruins? It clearly states that ruins confer a 4+ cover.

Where is said list?

Because Battlefield terrain section, Ruins sub-section says "Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured."

Page 108 gives the rules for ruins. The top of page 108
clearly defines the difference between 'in cover behind' and 'in'. The specification on ruins uses the term 'in'. therefore you must be 'in' to gain the 4+.
Don mondo correctly points out that in the section on Difficult Terrain, ruins are given as a specific example of something that provides a 5+ cover save 'in cover behind'.

So the BRB contradicts itself, why am I not surprised.

It contradicts itelsf in the vehicle saves section, not in your defiition of "in cover"

You can be "in cover" without being "inside THAT specific piece of cover" . I..e being IN(side) ruins is both IN cover and IN ruins, whereas being behind (and more than 25% etc) is IN cover but NOT IN the ruins.

However as it is parenthetical the reminder can be removed, and you are left with a 5+ save