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.

Careful now, you'll be accused of double standards. Somehow.

Why does this thread not have cowbell?

Precisely Wildstyle, I agree, well spoken.

I agree that 40k is a 3d game and the vertical dimension cannot be ignored for any measurement.

Even outside the section covering ruins, there is text that indicates clearly that the vertical dimension is a factor to be considered;

"If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it" BGB p.22

This rule clearly demonstrates that models and elements of terrain occupy finite space vertically which ends at the top of the model itself. The fact that line of sight can be drawn and shots fired over the top of a model's finite vertical space mandates consideration of the vertical dimension. This rule simply cannot function any other way. If this were a 2d game, there would be no way shots could go "over" anything without going "through it". The concept of "over" does not exist in a 2d world.

If a model occupies finite vertical space (which we know from the above rule), and the finite space ends at the top of the model (which we know from the above rule), and the bottom of an enemy valkyrie's wing is more than 1" above where the model's finite vertical space ends (which we can determine by measuring vertically), the model has complied with the rule that it cannot come within 1" of an enemy model even though it is positioned below the valkyrie's wing.

If that valkyrie were then immobilized while the model or rhino was positioned below the wing, the model or rhino would no longer be complying with the 1" away rule, and precedent tells us to move it the shortest distance possible to come back into compliance with that rule while maintaining coherency.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:If that valkyrie were then immobilized while the model or rhino was positioned below the wing, the model or rhino would no longer be complying with the 1" away rule, and precedent tells us to move it the shortest distance possible to come back into compliance with that rule while maintaining coherency.

I direct you good sir to Page 71 of the 5th Edition Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, which states "If a skimmer is immobilised or wrecked, its base is removed, if possible. If this is not possible (the base might have been glued in place, for example), don't worry about it. The skimmer's anti-grav field is obviously still working and an immobilised skimmer will simply remain hovering in place, incapable of any further movement."

Bold added by yours truly. If Possible, you remove the base. If it is not (say, because of the Rhino under it meaning if you do it will be in an illegal position) you simply leave the base on.

I'd say it's debatable whether "if possible" is referring to "possible" without breaking the model or "possible" without violating other rules or both.

My reading had always been "possible" without breaking the model because the example references a base which is "glued in place" suggesting it is physically impossible to remove it without breaking the model.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:I'd say it's debatable whether "if possible" is referring to "possible" without breaking the model or "possible" without violating other rules or both.

My reading had always been "possible" without breaking the model because the example references a base which is "glued in place" suggesting it is physically impossible to remove it without breaking the model.

-GK

But what in the rule says that it only takes into account breaking the model? The rule quoted even says "for example" indicating that it is definitely not the only way for the skimmer to be prevented from removing its base.

Augustus wrote:

Why is the guy saying "meltagun"?

(S)He is clearly pointing it at the heretic scum and screaming "MELTAGUN!" Just like they call out attacks in certain weird cartoons.

Gwar! wrote:(S)He is clearly pointing it at the heretic scum and screaming "MELTAGUN!" Just like they call out attacks in certain weird cartoons.

Anime teaches us that all Giant Robot (TM) weapon systems are voice activated. In some instances, the louder and more emphasis placed on certain syllables varies the attack strength exponentially.

I see. So if you really need to kill that Land Raider you have to say, "MeltaaaaaaaaaGUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But then it'll miss because the Land Raider has too much friendship or something.

also add bald and screaming as a bonus

Nice diagram

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why is the guy saying "meltagun"?

My bad! Is this better?

But what in the rule says that it only takes into account breaking the model? The rule quoted even says "for example" indicating that it is definitely not the only way for the skimmer to be prevented from removing its base.

Absolutely nothing in that rule says it only takes into account physical impossibility. However, when a rule provides an example, it is suggesting that the rule applies to situations similar to the one in the example. Here, the example provided is one of physical impossibility, not rules-based impossibility.


-GK

GiantKiller wrote:Absolutely nothing in that rule says it only takes into account physical impossibility. However, when a rule provides an example, it is suggesting that the rule applies to situations similar to the one in the example. Here, the example provided is one of physical impossibility, not rules-based impossibility. -GK

The reason that they use this example IMO, is that (prior to this thrice-accursed flight stand) is that physical impossibility would have been by far the most common, and indeed, glued flight stands are typical given how useless they are at holding themselves on.