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.

theironjef wrote:Okay, so now you're thinking, yeah yeah, but that's Cities of Death, it's got a different ruleset. Sure, let's go take a look at that. Cities of Death page 9: "Skimmers may not enter or occupy city ruins, but they may hover overhead as normal. (emphasis mine).

So... it's normal for skimmers to hover above ruins, illegally? Thanks GW!

I believe this is a result of a 4e hangover, that is, Cities of Death being a 4th Ed book.

I do love that it is nearly the end of 5e, four years into it? And I've found yet one more goofy item that hadn't been properly addressed. Surprised? No. Amused? Yes.

To all:

I wonder if a skimmer may be "placed" on the top of a ruin but may not "land" there, unless it has a special rule allowing it (ie landing gear of the Tau Devilfish).

I think the folks who are arguing in favor of skimmers being able to "end their movement phase" atop a ruin have a valid point. I think that the Rules as INTENDED would indicate that a skimmer could do it, if it can be placed on a roof physically.

However, those folks who are opposed to a skimmer doing this are technically correct it seems. RAW clearly exclude skimmers from being able to move to the "upper levels" of a building or ruin. Again this does not seem to be what GW intended as evidenced from their own publications.

A resonable compromise IMHO would be to allow skimmers to end their movement phase atop a building or ruin but not allow them to occupy levels two through the penthouse. Which I will definately use against my stepson and those nasty scarabs and my buddy with the TWC and Fenrises.

DrG

doktor_g wrote:To all:

I wonder if a skimmer may be "placed" on the top of a ruin but may not "land" there, unless it has a special rule allowing it (ie landing gear of the Tau Devilfish).

I think the folks who are arguing in favor of skimmers being able to "end their movement phase" atop a ruin have a valid point. I think that the Rules as INTENDED would indicate that a skimmer could do it, if it can be placed on a roof phyically.

However, those folks who are opposed to a skimmer doing this are technically correct it seems. RAW clearly exclude skimmers from being able to move to the "upper levels" of a building or ruin. Again this does not seem to be what GW intended as evidenced from their own publications.

A resonable compromise IMHO would be to allow skimmers to end their movement phase atop a building or ruin but not allow them to occupy levels two through the penthouse. Which I will definately use against my stepson and those nasty scarabs and my buddy with the TWC and Fenrises.

DrG

Nobody appreciates your rational and well-contemplated ideas! Go to your room and think about how to properly argue on the Internet, then come back here and yell at us! Grrrr arrrgh

Yeah, your response was too well thought out and too rational. Your obviously trying to be a troll. Also Lern 2 Spel!!

To any Mods, in case you did not realize it, this post is intended to be a joke. Though I don't know why I bother trying to make jokes on what is obviously a very, very serious forum...

Thenk yuo,

Me wuz tryng herd to spel rite and yooze gramer gooder.

DrG