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.

Don't dodge.

Well the models base is considered part of the model, the flight stand I wound say is part of the base.

I think the real question would be: Is the stand opaque enough to block 25% of the image?

if yes, cover save.
if no, then no cover save.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Don't dodge.

Pot, kettle.

Yes, I think firing through a model is the same as firing between models in a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Don't dodge.

Yes, I think firing through a model is the same as firing between models in a unit.

Then please mark such posts with either RAI or HYWPI and don't claim it being "that way" when there are no rules to back that up.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Don't dodge.

Yes, I think firing through a model is the same as firing between models in a unit.

Then please mark such posts with either RAI or HYWPI and don't claim it being "that way" when there are no rules to back that up.

Don't dodge. And don't selectively edit my posts in the future.

Let me know if I should start doing so in any point in the future.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Let me know if I should start doing so in any point in the future.

Don't dodge.

 Sigvatr wrote:
First of all, with this question, YMDC has hit a new low.

Secondly - gain cover from a transparent "thing"?

If anyone seriously claims to get cover from a flight stand, I'd kick that person out of the room personally.

First of all:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1. - Alpharius]

Secondly, the transparancy doesn't matter because many people paint their flight stands.

Finally. The flight stand is not legs. it is not wings. It is not part of the model. It is logistically necessary to put the model where it should be, but generally it is going to be more like a decorative element than like an actual model, so the rulebook does not allow it to grant cover:

Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the bases of their models are always ignored from the point of view of determining cover. You cannot take your cover with you!

I think we've put this to bed, and there is too much name-calling in this thread to make it useful to continue conversation.

tag8833 wrote:

First of all:
(image)

Most questions are legit. With some questions, I just can't understand how people even manage to come up with. This is YMDC, yes, and RAW is a purely internet phenomenon, so, in what actual game would this even come up? I can hardly imagine any player standing in front of me saying "Yo, I get cover from the flight stand.". Or maybe I just play people who are good sportsmen.

 Sigvatr wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

First of all:
(image)

Most questions are legit. With some questions, I just can't understand how people even manage to come up with. This is YMDC, yes, and RAW is a purely internet phenomenon, so, in what actual game would this even come up? I can hardly imagine any player standing in front of me saying "Yo, I get cover from the flight stand.". Or maybe I just play people who are good sportsmen.

Don't dodge.
And yes, I'd ask for a cover save for firing through a model. Which is demonstrably what you're doing.

I want to emphazize the last sentence.

Anyway, the rules are clear on this. If parts are obscured by the intervening model, then you get a cover save. Or if firing through gapes between 2+ models in the intervening unit. And that's about it.

So basically, you only have to ask if:

a) parts of the intervening unit block LoS or

b) you fire through gaps between the intervening unit.

I think both the rule about 'scenic' stuff and the part about the base being ignored are both in favour of what Sigvatr is saying.

The flying stand is not part of the model. If you consider it part of the model itself, then, at the same time, you say that you can fire at a flying target if you can only see the flying stand and not the actual model.

What interestes me more, however, is why, and moreso, how people want their flying stands...to me, it always was nothing but a necessary tool to illustrate the flying nature of the model with the perfect solution being the creature actually hovering e.g. with magnets. What would the colored flying stand supposed to represent? Explosive diarrhea?

 Sigvatr wrote:
The flying stand is not part of the model. If you consider it part of the model itself, then, at the same time, you say that you can fire at a flying target if you can only see the flying stand and not the actual model.

Incorrect. The rules explain what you're allowed to target. The flying base is not one of those things. Please stop stating this as if it were true.

What interestes me more, however, is why, and moreso, how people want their flying stands...to me, it always was nothing but a necessary tool to illustrate the flying nature of the model with the perfect solution being the creature actually hovering e.g. with magnets. What would the colored flying stand supposed to represent? Explosive diarrhea?

In some cases, sure. Nurgle is a thing.

Don't dodge. Answer the question I posed to you please.

rigeld2 wrote:

Incorrect. The rules explain what you're allowed to target. The flying base is not one of those things. Please stop stating this as if it were true.

LoS, p. 14. Do you consider the flying stand to be part of the model's body? The entire "head, torso, leg, arms" part refers to the shooter, not the target.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Incorrect. The rules explain what you're allowed to target. The flying base is not one of those things. Please stop stating this as if it were true.

LoS, p. 14. Do you consider the flying stand to be part of the model's body? The entire "head, torso, leg, arms" part refers to the shooter, not the target.

No. I never said it was part of the models body. Much as his gun isn't part of the models body, but is demonstrably part of the model.

Edit: also, still dodging. Stop dodging.
And more selective editing. Cute

Good, finally. So a flying stand is not part of the model. It belongs to the base, not the model.

I answered your question 3-4 posts before. Read it up.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Good, finally. So a flying stand is not part of the model. It belongs to the base, not the model.

So a gun is not part of the model? Please actually use the words I said, not what you want me to say. Because I never said it wasn't part of the model.
The base is part of the model.

I answered your question 3-4 posts before. Read it up.

Nope, still don't see it. Link or quote the post, if you don't mind.

It doesn't really matter if a base is part of the model or not.
The question would be whether the Flying Stem belongs to the base or not.

As I see it, it's part of the base and therefore we can apply this rule: " The base of a Flyer is effectively ignored, except for when..."

Kangodo wrote:
It doesn't really matter if a base is part of the model or not.
The question would be whether the Flying Stem belongs to the base or not.

As I see it, it's part of the base and therefore we can apply this rule: " The base of a Flyer is effectively ignored, except for when..."

It's part of the base. It's even *sold* with the base.

Actually, if we are really talking straight RAW here, which is pointless nitpicking, as usual, but alas: it's neither. There's a base and then there's a model. The flying stand is some kind of weird thing in between. Literally.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Flight stand isn't part of the model. Unless you want to claim that seeing the flight stand is enough to fire at a flyer.

You're making a link that isn't actually in the rules. There is a disconnect in 40K (and has been for several editions now) between what counts as a part of the model for drawing LOS to the model, and what blocks LOS.

For example, a Marine Sergeant's back banner has, for at least 3 editions now, been ignored when trying to draw LOS to the model. But there have never been any rules allowing you to ignore that banner if it obscures a model beyond the sergeant.

So the flight stand being a part of the model or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not we should ignore it when trying to establish LOS to something on the other side of it. Prevailing assumption is going to be 'yes, it's just a part of the base'. The problem is simply that this isn't actually based on any rules - the idea that we should ignore the base is not grounded on actual rules, just on the assumption that the base isn't supposed to count for anything other than measurement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
There's a termagant holding an objective. You can only see it through the legs of a Tervigon, but you can see the entire model. Does it get a cover save?

If it's not obscured, no, it doesn't get a cover save in that example. The rule you're trying to apply here only applies if you're drawing LOS between models in a unit, not for shooting through the empty air around a single model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: it's worth noting that both skimmers and flyers have the note in their Measurement rules section saying that the base is effectively ignored. While this is talking about measurement, I suspect that most players would take it as a blanket rule.

Flying monstrous creatures and jump infantry have no such rule.


As I said at the start, this would be a non-issue in an actual game. It's just a curious oversight in the rules.

Alright this seems like a nice nitpicky olace to ask this question. Can an ironclad dreadnought fit in a drop pod?

Technically: no, drop pods fit 1 DREADNOUGHT but what is and isnt a DREADNOUGHT isnt specifically stated, therefore unless something is a DREADNOUGHT specifically or ten models or a thunderfire cannon.

HOWEVER: We the players in order to form a more intelligent community understand what a dreadnought is and isnt. Therefore we play the game intelligently. The fact that this conversation exists is sad. We as a community should try to plug holes where they are not widen the existing ones in the already porous terrain rules.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
The fact that this conversation exists is sad. We as a community should try to plug holes where they are not widen the existing ones in the already porous terrain rules.

One of those statements doesn't belong...

The whole point of rules discussion is to plug those holes... or at least to establish where they are so that players can decide for themselves whether or not said hole actually needs plugging.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Therefore we play the game intelligently. The fact that this conversation exists is sad. We as a community should try to plug holes where they are not widen the existing ones in the already porous terrain rules.

YMDC and real life is a huge difference. In real life, most issues that come up in YMDC would never be an issue as players just apply common sense and play on. RAW is an invention of the internet and mostly, it's discussing for the discussion's sake.

One awesome example is the old Necron codex where the rules state that an ability can be targeted at an enemy unit at The Deceiver's (a model's) will. RAW, this would mean that the game breaks as you would have no idea what a plastic models wants. In an actual game, people will never bring this up. The player simply chooses a target. In YMDC, you would have an epic 5+ pages thread with people raging all over each others.

I always imagine YMDC being some kind of gentlemen's club (with less gentlemen) where you drop in, have a seat, smoke a cigar, have a glass of wine and discuss to...discuss and not much else.

So - don't think that just because of some comments in here that people will be irrational TFG players in actual games (at least that's what I do...). Most people will most likely be your average player and never make an issue out of a minor problem in the rules.

RAW has its place as sometimes, it's interesting to see just how poorly written the rules are. In real life, it's meaningless. In a tournament, your TO will always have the last word. When playing with friends, shoving a rulebook in their face because "IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BUT IT'S RAW LOL" will most likely end up with you being kicked out of the door

But it does have it's use.
With all this discussing we've probably read the BRB a hundred times.
I'm not sure about you guys, but I am probably the local player with the most knowledge about the rules and for almost any issue I can - without a BRB - tell people where to find the answer.
My personal favourite would still be a 10+ pages discussion about invulnerable saves

@Insaniak, you are right. I do take that as a general blanket-rule.

...and this is why GW is going to go out of business.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Therefore we play the game intelligently. The fact that this conversation exists is sad. We as a community should try to plug holes where they are not widen the existing ones in the already porous terrain rules.

YMDC and real life is a huge difference. In real life, most issues that come up in YMDC would never be an issue as players just apply common sense and play on. RAW is an invention of the internet and mostly, it's discussing for the discussion's sake.

One awesome example is the old Necron codex where the rules state that an ability can be targeted at an enemy unit at The Deceiver's (a model's) will. RAW, this would mean that the game breaks as you would have no idea what a plastic models wants. In an actual game, people will never bring this up. The player simply chooses a target. In YMDC, you would have an epic 5+ pages thread with people raging all over each others.

I always imagine YMDC being some kind of gentlemen's club (with less gentlemen) where you drop in, have a seat, smoke a cigar, have a glass of wine and discuss to...discuss and not much else.

So - don't think that just because of some comments in here that people will be irrational TFG players in actual games (at least that's what I do...). Most people will most likely be your average player and never make an issue out of a minor problem in the rules.

RAW has its place as sometimes, it's interesting to see just how poorly written the rules are. In real life, it's meaningless. In a tournament, your TO will always have the last word. When playing with friends, shoving a rulebook in their face because "IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BUT IT'S RAW LOL" will most likely end up with you being kicked out of the door

Agreed. The thread should end on this.

 Sigvatr wrote:
RAW has its place as sometimes, it's interesting to see just how poorly written the rules are.

This comment highlights one of the most fundamental misunderstandings about rules discussions.

'RAW' isn't just something that is applied when we're discussing a big hole in the rules. The RAW encompasses the entire rulebook. It's what we use to play the game. The rule that says that infantry models move 6" is RAW. The rule that says that terminator armour confers a 2+ save is RAW. The rule that says that vehicles roll on the damage table is RAW.

'RAW' is quite simply the rules of the game as written in the rulebook. So it doesn't just 'have its place sometimes'... It has its place most of the time. Sometimes, it's just badly written, and either leaves things open to interpretation or doesn't cover a given situation.

The vast majority of rules questions on this board, though, can be and are easily answered through application of the rules as written.

My bad, should have made that clearer in my previous post. I was referring to the term "RAW" used in discussions.

insaniak is correct, of course, the problems begin with people claiming RAW where RAW essentially is an interpretation of the rules. Pretty much every thread with 2-3+ pages is nothing but people tossing "RAW" around.

Not to put the blame, or all of it, solely on the players, though - GW's rules got piss-poor quality and leave vast space for misunderstandings.

...and because I'm a nitpicky donkey: RAW does not only encompass the BRB, but all official rules publications such as codices, FAQ, supplement DLC and FW books.

 Sigvatr wrote:
. I was referring to the term "RAW" used in discussions.

So was I.

insaniak is correct, of course, the problems begin with people claiming RAW where RAW essentially is an interpretation of the rules.

While that is indeed a problem, it wasn't actually my point.