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.

Happyjew wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
In fact it's quite arguable that since this is not presented as a rule in and of itself, it's simply presented for informational purposes in that bases relate to such things as measuring distances, range of weapons, line of sight and so on. In fact, later in the paragraph it even takes back what was said earlier by adding:

Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Somemodels aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to mount themodel on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance.

Note that the bolded text above is my emphasis.

In that case I will not mount any of my shooting units on bases, that way they can never be assaulted since the enemy cannot get in base to base contact with them.

See how silly this is?

My point exactly. But then, the issue with the codex allowing the use of landing gear hasn't been addressed. If it's no longer a skimmer and by default no longer able to "skim" or hover above the ground, how do you represent that in-game other than removing the flight base? A tank doesn't have a base which is what the hammerhead becomes if it isn't a skimmer. The unit entry for devilfish and hammerheads in the Tau codex notes that they are "Type: Tank, Skimmer". Remove the skimmer portion and you're left with "tank" a tank has no base and should be flat on the table.

That's my logic for how it could work and it's supported by the codex.

You could say it was supported by the codex if the codex said to remove the base. It doesn't.
There's literally hundreds of ways to note landing gear. How do you note hull point damage?
Or smoke launchers?
Or combo weapons used?
Or a weapon destroyed result?

None of those require you to modify your model, but all of them can be shown by modifying your model.

Ok so basically the BRB says model uses base supplied with it right?

For those who have never assembled a tau vehicle, the modeled is supplied with a flying base to show as a skimmer, aswell as specific landing gear that even in the instructions says not to glue! so that would and could only be for removing the base and using landing gear.

needs to be faq'd basically.

Dose anyone know a link to send FAQ's to GW with?

rigeld2 wrote:
You could say it was supported by the codex if the codex said to remove the base. It doesn't.
There's literally hundreds of ways to note landing gear. How do you note hull point damage?
Or smoke launchers?
Or combo weapons used?
Or a weapon destroyed result?

None of those require you to modify your model, but all of them can be shown by modifying your model.

Ok, the unit entry is "Tank, Skimmer". The landing gear entry in the codex states that, after the first turn, if the vehicle doesn't move, it may not be counted as a skimmer which leaves the tank part of the entry valid. Tanks don't skim without the skimmer rule, therefore no flight base is needed or even useful; if it doesn't actually land, there's no need for "landing" gear. Maybe I'm old school because I remember the days of pop-up Tau and Eldar tanks in 3rd edition or maybe I just tank a one paragraph blurp on page 3 as a hard rule when it's not even worded as one (the entry that deals with using the base supplied with the model). There is no rule that says I "have to" use a base.

In any event, I think we understand each other well enough and further discussion would just go to bore us both so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't play competitively and when I do play, my regular opponent and I discuss how we think things should be (we've known each other for years) rationally and with a clear understanding that GW writers could not write their way out of a wet paper bag. I commented because I thought it was interesting and would make something in the Tau codex actually useful versus all the other wargear that serves no function because the book is 2 generations old at this point and hasn't aged well (kind of like a pair of socks I own).

Cheers.

I pointed out that Landing Gear does have use again.

3rd ed: No idea, no rulebook.
4th ed: If immobilised while in difficult terrain, skimemrs were immediately wrecked. Landing Gear negated this part.
5th ed; skimmers only wrecked if immobilised after moving flat-out. Landing Gear does nothing, since you have moved.
6th ed: Skyfire can shoot at full BS at Skimmers. Landing Gear negates that by not counting as a Skimmer.

Makes sense to me that the landing gear allow you to land the tank and remove it from its flying base.

Then it just becomes a regular tank, you assault the hull, not the base.

The landing gear rule does not say that it allows you to remove the base, so by strict RAW you are not allowed to. This doesn't really make sense, but since nobody takes landing gear anyway it's not really a problem.

Find permission to alter your model during the game.
Please quote it here.

Unless it specifically says you can remove your skimmer stand, you do not get to remove it.

Landing Gear was important in 4th Edition so you didn't wreck if you got immobilized. Now it's just an extra defunct piece of wargear.

Unless there's actually a good reason to remove being a skimmer.

Happyjew said

6th ed: Skyfire can shoot at full BS at Skimmers. Landing Gear negates that by not counting as a Skimmer.

so it sounds as they still can be used agasint flyers if it is using skyfire or anything else with skyfire.

Plus all tau vehicles come with landing gear apart from piranhas.

 agnosto wrote:

Fragile wrote:

If a Skimmer is Immobilised or Wrecked, its base is removed, if possible.............(edited out other text.).........Note that it is not otherwise permitted to remove the flying base, as Skimmers cannot land in battle conditions.

...pg 83

Yes, but if landing gear are used on turn 2+ the vehicle is no longer a skimmer until it moves again.

... And for those who don't understand the point agnosto is making; The rule you are quoting on p83 applies to Skimmers. Landing Gear causes the Tau Vehicle to no longer be a Skimmer, therefore the rule you are quoting ceases entirely to be relevant. I don't put Land Raiders on a Skimmer base, why? Because it is not a skimmer. The rule you're quoting on p83 has no relevance to a Land Raider. Nor does it have relevance to a Hammerhead/Devilfish fitted with Landing Gears making use of them on turn 2+, as that Hammerhead/Devilfish is..... *drumroll* NO LONGER A SKIMMER.

Landing Gears are ugly, and I would never model my dear Hammerhead with them, but bellyaching over a vehicle with a huge av12 side, and 1-shot railgun which is pretty much worse than a (Same Points!) Russ just seems silly, as does a (now 90+ point) transport with a massive av11 side and little, if any, useful armaments.