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.

insaniak, so your argument regarding tank shocking into cover is predicated on an interpretation of the rules that would prevent skimmers on flying bases from ever contacting another unit or vice versa in any situation, not just the one we're talking about? Have I understood you correctly?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:insaniak, so your argument regarding tank shocking into cover is predicated on an interpretation of the rules

Nope. Just on the rules as written.


Not saying that anyone should actually play that skimmers are unassaultable. But it is where the rules currently stand.

By using the word "interpretation," I do not mean to imply that you are in some way mistaken or are twisting what is written. By "interpretation of the rules," I simply mean "the rules, as grasped by you." You could well be 100% correct--I am not concerned with that at the moment. All I want to know is whether I have understood this correctly: the premises from which you conclude that skimmers cannot tank shock units in terrain also necessitate the conclusion that skimmers cannot tank shock, period. Yes? No?

The best thing to do is not tank shock. Of course this calls for class.

- G

tegeus-Cromis wrote:All I want to know is whether I have understood this correctly: the premises from which you conclude that skimmers cannot tank shock units in terrain also necessitate the conclusion that skimmers cannot tank shock, period. Yes? No?

That would be correct.

I'll point out once again though that I'm not suggesting that this is what was intended or how it should be played. Nor is it even where the original rules went... it's purely a result of the FAQ answer that removes the flight base from consideration when measuring. Not GW's most well thought out ruling...

It's (IMNSHO) much better than the alternative of trying to use a base whose area is grossly disproportionate to the size of the actual model, and which you wouldn't be able to contact anyway due to the physical proportions and shape of the model and base.

But I agree that the vehicle rules and the interaction of models which can't actually get into base/hull contact should be better written.

Fair enough, insaniak.