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.

OK,

I think I have a better understanding of the different issues. Perhaps I can explain my point of view a bit better and then if anyone wants to disagree it can be a bit more structured than "Well you're making that up."

I really don't think I am. 40k is a great game and while there are some areas where the rules aren't very clear I think this is an area that requires wilful misinterpreting. I want to try to set out some examples where I think you will be playing one way already and show how you can't have it both ways.

2D Nature of 40K.

I would like to maintain my point that 40k is a 2-Dimensional game system. This means that the location of models is calculated in two dimensions and could be represented properly by a representation on a flat map. This means that you could use a coordinate system to record the position of models, in much the same way as they do in Chess. Any requirements for consideration of height, the third dimension are included in other rules. Fundamentally the mechanic is two-dimensional. This is illustrated in many copies of WD magazine and other GW publications which use overhead maps for tactica and battlereports. Additional notation with respect to height is not required.

For example, when moving inside a building floors are arbitraily assumed to consume a certain amount of horizontal move distance to pass between. You do not measure progress continually but instead surrender move allowance to ascend or descend a level. Coherence within buildings is measured horizontally and models are not permitted to be more than one level apart. This distinction highlights the difference between the underlying mechanic (horizontal coherency) and the special rule facilitating a third dimension (floors).

When you measure how far a model can move you measure across the horizontal plane. So for example if you were going to disembark from a Rhino you place your toops within the proper distance, measured horizontally from the tank. Notably people disembarking from skimmers do the same. They measure the proper distance horizontally from the access points of the vehicle. I suspect no-one reading this thread would stop an opponent from disembarking in this manner.

Another example is that of the very steep hill. When ascending a hill you measure your progress horizontally. A special rule concerning difficult terrain regulates how easily your troops may travel over steep gradients. Cleverly named the dificult terrain rule. This means that you may actually pass over a greater distance of tabletop surface than your movement allowance. That's how the game works.

In fact in 40k you measure everything horizontally. The only reason that distances aren't measured horizontally when shooting from high buildings is that the changes in range are so small. At the top of a 12" high building a Heavy Bolter only loses 2.1" of effective range. The gain in simplicity by measuring from the barrel to the target in the same way that TLOS is determined makes for a more streamlined game and exceeds the outrageous nonsense of losing range when you fire from a superior vantage point in importance.

Moving within an inch

In the same way that disembarking troops measure horizontally from a tanks access point the 1" buffer zone is also measured horizontally from a skimmers hull. This buffer zone is in force at all times except when assaulting. Skimmers move horizontally too and have a special rule which allows them to ignore terrain and models en route but not before and after their moves. This is because the mechanic is 2-dimensional otherwise skimmer would be incredibly powerful, gaining altitude to shoot at targets before dropping back down behind cover.

The flight base is a fancy way of representing a tank without wheels. In terms of the game mechanic the tank is firmly on the dirt and this is why playing with a skimmer with no flgith base is not only possible but equally enjoyable as playing with a flight base.

If vertical movement was possible players would bring a range of bases to facilitate their tactical use of the third dimension. On turns one and two you might crawl along the ground, blocking TLOS to you troops before rising up to allow them to rapidfire on turn three. After all there are no rules against changing the height of a flying base mid-game.

Why not? Because the height of a flying base isn't meant to have an effect in the game. Efforts to ascribe meaning to whether or not you use the long or short flying bases is a nonsense.

Example:
"Oh damn, you can assault my firewarriors because I used the tall bases this game. Oh how I wish I has used those stubby ones after all..."

Last Example:

Templates. I suppose the logical conclusion is that template weapons would have to be able to reach up to the hull of a skimmer too. After all it is clearly stated that only models on the same level may be hit by a template or blast weapon. So if some troops get hit a blast or template only tanks on the ground level can be hit. Since you are claiming that skimmers are actually at the height they are models you can avoid this problem by modelling all of your tanks 3" off the ground. Or it could be that the game mechanic considers all models as they are viewed from above which is why you are asked to look down on a template or blast not sideways or from any other direction.

Summary:

Skimmers have fun bases but in game terms exert an area of control on the ground around them as though they were on the ground. You may not move within 1" of a skimmers hull as viewed vertically like a blast template. Regardless of whether you move before or after the skimmer. You can shoot under or around them in the same way as any other tank but you cannot move within an inch of them.

Ask any Tau player.

I hope this explains my point of view a bit more effectively. I really think that to move under a skimmer would require re-writing the whole game. Blasts and templates, fleeing, dificult terrain, hills, buildings, embarking and disembarking, tank explosion damage, would all have to be re-written. You may need to produce 3d cone templates and blast balls too.

Zarahemna wrote:
while there are some areas where the rules aren't very clear I think this is an area that requires wilful misinterpreting.

This line says it all!

[
Here's your hill of beans:



Now, we're even.

Eric

Zarahemna wrote:Fundamentally the mechanic is two-dimensional. This is illustrated in many copies of WD magazine and other GW publications which use overhead maps for tactica and battlereports.

They use overhead views because that's the easiest way of showing the entire battlefield in a way that makes sense to the viewer. Annotations of height aren't required because you can see the terain on the map, and have the occasional real photo as a reference.

It's a long leap from there to 'The entire game is 2D'

For example, when moving inside a building floors are arbitraily assumed to consume a certain amount of horizontal move distance to pass between.

You don't move around inside buildings.
When moving in Ruins the floors are arbitrarily spaced... but that's simply a convenience, to make it easy to use the terrain regardless of how it's built, since making ruins that are actually game friendly is a mite tricky. Again, not an aspect of a 2D game, just an aspect of Area Terrain.

Coherence within buildings is measured horizontally

No it's not.

and models are not permitted to be more than one level apart.

There is no such rule. Although in practice, models would indeed be unable to be more than one level apart... simply because to do so, unless the floors are very close together, would break coherency.

Levels are only the arbitrary 3" apart for movement. For everything else, the models are assumed to be where the models are actually placed.

When you measure how far a model can move you measure across the horizontal plane.

This one crops up from time to time, and yet so far nobody has ever provided a rule to back it up.

You measure from the start point to the finish point. If that means measuring at an angle to account for vertical height difference in the terrain you're traveling on, then you measure at an angle.

There is no rule that says to measure only horizontally. It's a myth. Measuring only on the one plane is not measuring the actual distance the model is moving.

Another example is that of the very steep hill. When ascending a hill you measure your progress horizontally.

If you do this, you would be cheating, as you are granting your models extra movement.

In fact in 40k you measure everything horizontally.

So, once again, can you please provide a rule that actually says this?

Because otherwise, this entire argument is based on a misapprehension.

The only reason that distances aren't measured horizontally when shooting from high buildings is that the changes in range are so small. At the top of a 12" high building a Heavy Bolter only loses 2.1" of effective range. The gain in simplicity by measuring from the barrel to the target in the same way that TLOS is determined makes for a more streamlined game and exceeds the outrageous nonsense of losing range when you fire from a superior vantage point in importance.

Pardon?

You don't measure from the barrel, unless it's a vehicle shooting... and a vehicle isn't going to be sitting on a tall building.

And measuring horizontally when shooting from a height would gain you range, not reduce it...

Skimmers move horizontally too and have a special rule which allows them to ignore terrain and models en route

'Ignoring' terrain was last edition. This edition they 'move over' terrain and obstacles.

This is because the mechanic is 2-dimensional otherwise skimmer would be incredibly powerful, gaining altitude to shoot at targets before dropping back down behind cover.

Sorry, you lost me again. How does it 'gain altitude to shoot' and then drop back behind cover?

If vertical movement was possible players would bring a range of bases to facilitate their tactical use of the third dimension.

There are no rules that allow you to alter a model in the middle of the game.
And whether or not skimmers can move vertically has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the game is inherently 2D...

After all there are no rules against changing the height of a flying base mid-game.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not a rule.

Never has been, never will be. You need a rule saying that you can do it.

After all it is clearly stated that only models on the same level may be hit by a template or blast weapon.

...when firing at a ruin. Nothing whatsoever to do with vehicles...




Summary:
Not trying to be nasty here, but your entire post is based on incorrect assumptions and a flawed understanding of the rules.

Thanks to Insaniak, for saving me from having to write all of that myself.

This game uses 3D measuring all the time. And the changes in 5E emphasize that even more.

Pg 71, "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either. Note that a skimmer must be set down on the table in place at the end of it's move- it cannot be left hovering in mid-air!"

I'd say that settles it. Even though common sense dictates that you can't, since falcons sit about half a cm above the ground on the base as is. If you mod the base to stand 4ft, we've got names for those sorts of people.

haderach wrote:I'd say that settles it.

Settles what? It doesn't even mention the actual issue at hand...

Even though common sense dictates that you can't, since falcons sit about half a cm above the ground on the base as is.

GW makes 4 different flight stems. One is an inch and a quarter tall, and another is a little over a quarter of an inch taller than that. So both potentially tall enough to allow a model underneath to fit underneath the skimmer.

So are you suggesting that some models would be immune to being assaulted by other larger models that couldn't fit under the skimmer?

EG. 3 rattlins under a falcon being assaulted by terminators that can't get within 1 inch because they can't fit under the skimmer.

haderach wrote:So are you suggesting that some models would be immune to being assaulted by other larger models that couldn't fit under the skimmer?

EG. 3 rattlins under a falcon being assaulted by terminators that can't get within 1 inch because they can't fit under the skimmer.

If the ratlings can fit under the skimmer, then the terminators can, as their bases are the same height.

Then if you put the long stick on the falcon most of the minis would not be able to assault it. They will not be able to get in contact with it.

Again, if you interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model" allow you to put minis bellow... why not also above?. Put the fire dragons over the falcon and move it 24" (with care). You will be able to shot with the fire dragons because they aren't inside a transport.

Even if the rulebook don't forbid something specifically, it doesn't mean that you can do it.

Harridan wrote:Then if you put the long stick on the falcon most of the minis would not be able to assault it. They will not be able to get in contact with it.

That would apply no matter which of the stems you put on it.

Luckily, they considered this when they wrote the rules, since the current rules for skimmers allow assaulters to contact the base instead of the hull... (page 71: Measuring Distances)

Of course, they didn't consider it very well, since that does still mean that it's possible for some skimmers to be unassaultable, as the flight base is hidden under the model where it's uncontactable, and the hull is off the table and therefore also unable to be contacted by your models' bases...

Again, if you interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model" allow you to put minis bellow... why not also above?

Why not, indeed?

Put the fire dragons over the falcon and move it 24" (with care). You will be able to shot with the fire dragons because they aren't inside a transport.

If the fire dragons aren't embarked in the transport, they can't move with it.

Even if the rulebook don't forbid something specifically, it doesn't mean that you can do it.

Of course it doesn't. But the rules allowing it does mean that the rules allow it.

Whether or not that means you should do it, that's another matter entirely.

insaniak wrote:

Put the fire dragons over the falcon and move it 24" (with care). You will be able to shot with the fire dragons because they aren't inside a transport.

If the fire dragons aren't embarked in the transport, they can't move with it.

Why not? Where in the rulebook appears that if you move the thing where the miniatures are placed on, the miniatures remain in the same point of the table?.
The rulebook doesn't specify a lot of things; it's just a question of common sense. You can surround a Chaos Landraider by spikes and nobody will be able to assault it because no one will get in contact with the hull; why not?. You can move a unit out of the table (the rulebook don't forbid it); why not?. The rulebook says that you can’t change the size of the base of the miniatures, but it doesn't say anything about vehicles. You can have a Land raider with the size of a nurgling (Yeah, my sorcerer has shrunk it); why not?.

I'm saying all this in a funny way. Not trying to offend.

Pd: I expect I'm not giving ideas to malicious players. I don't want to go to a tournament and find a player with a tiny Land Raider full of spikes moving it outside the table. :S

The rules specify that you move one unit at a time in the movement rules (the exception being units embarked in a transport). Moving a skimmer with models on top of it violates this rule.

Harridan wrote:Why not? Where in the rulebook appears that if you move the thing where the miniatures are placed on, the miniatures remain in the same point of the table?.

As Democratus says, the movement rules specify that you move one unit at a time. If you move a unit outside the normal movement process, you're breaking the rules.

You can surround a Chaos Landraider by spikes and nobody will be able to assault it because no one will get in contact with the hull;

So far as the rules are concerned, that's correct.

You can move a unit out of the table (the rulebook don't forbid it);

That one's debatable, but not worth going into here, since it's completely off the point.

The rulebook says that you can’t change the size of the base of the miniatures, but it doesn't say anything about vehicles. You can have a Land raider with the size of a nurgling

Actually, the rulebook doesn't allow you to alter models at all. The rules reference the 'Citadel miniatures' made for the game, and make no reference to conversions.

I'm saying all this in a funny way. Not trying to offend.

No offense taken... but I'm thoroughly confused as to what point you think you're making.

There are holes in the rules. Pointing out more of them won't make the one we're discussing magically go away.

The rules allow models to move under skimmers. They also make skimmers unassaultable in certain situations. Whether or not you can convert a land raider to also stop assaults is completely irrelvant... no matter how you convert your land raider, the rules will still allow models to move under a skimmer.

Whether or not you choose to play that way is completely up to you, and totally outside the scope of a discussion on what the rules actually say. It's fine to mention that you personally would play it differently... but how you choose to play it has no bearing on the actual rules.

I've played games both ways, letting people move under skimmers and not letting them and not allowing models to be under a skimmer seems to be the least obtrusive or confusing.

When I organize a tournament from now on I am not going to allow models under skimmers.