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.

our gaming group has always used the "flying bases" to represent the fact the model is flying. other than that it is irrelevant. like all other vehicles-land raiders, predators, leman russ's, falsons etc... we always measure LOS from the weapons mount and distance from the hull of the vehicle as per the core rulebook. if you notice, the idea behind 4th edition was to streamline gameplay. so they made alot of gear and rules very much identical. this works in hand with the vehicle rules. i think you will find most people play it that way, if you want to propose the flying base idea to an opponant(and all the problems that creates) do so and see if they still want to play you.

An immobilized skimmer has it's base removed,

This is a general gaming convention, not a rule.

Most players I have encountered over the years have had their skimmer bases glued on. I'm sure not going to be the one who tells them they have to rip them off mid-game.

Posted By insaniak on 04/25/2006 5:57 PM

An immobilized skimmer has it's base removed,

This is a general gaming convention, not a rule.

Most players I have encountered over the years have had their skimmer bases glued on. I'm sure not going to be the one who tells them they have to rip them off mid-game.

Why not?  They will break off on their own soon enough anyhow!

Posted by snooggums on 04/25/2006 10:17 AM
It doesn't, hence why I added the "reasonable opponent" and "end result is the same". Of course I don't think a flying base is a base for game mechanics since it is smaller than the model's hull, or was intended to be for gaming purposes, so I don't always word it correctly the first time. But, should someone actually model their base to the shape of the largeer hull then it would be completely legal. As I said, a reasonable opponent would allow you to use the vehicle's actual hull as they know you end up with the same result anyway but get to keep a clear unintrusive base in the meantime.

It still doesn't change what the rules say. You can make up whatever house rules you want, but the model's footprint is still not the same thing as a base.

Are you sure of that Ghaz? What's to stop a wily Tau player from saying the paint on the bottom of their Devilfish comprises the base for the model, thus making the base and the underside of the hull "outline" the same?  Since base sizes fall under the guidance of page 6, where the only limitation on base size and shape is that it has to be larger than the one provided... what's to stop me from using Paint-basing for my devilfish?

 

I'm just being devil's advocate as I am a Tau player and have a vested interest in the RAW being used to my advantage here.

Zeqe..... You can also make a base the same effective size and shape as the devilfish, or bigger if you want. Heck, you could just attach the thing to a fancy hubcap and call that the base if you wanted to. It just has to be the same or bigger than the flying base that came in the box. Heck, going by that viewpoint, I am thinking of using 3" by 3" squares under every firewarrior the next time I face a drop-pod marine army. Sure will deny them a lot of space to land on.

Of course, in a practical sense, you would also have a lot of trouble with getting into arguements with your opponents and probably wouldn't have many opportunities to play again.

-Hans

Posted By Hans on 04/26/2006 8:42 PM
Zeqe..... You can also make a base the same effective size and shape as the devilfish, or bigger if you want. Heck, you could just attach the thing to a fancy hubcap and call that the base if you wanted to. It just has to be the same or bigger than the flying base that came in the box. Heck, going by that viewpoint, I am thinking of using 3" by 3" squares under every firewarrior the next time I face a drop-pod marine army. Sure will deny them a lot of space to land on.

Of course, in a practical sense, you would also have a lot of trouble with getting into arguements with your opponents and probably wouldn't have many opportunities to play again.

-Hans

 

True, and granted some people would find it rather distasteful, but I was just proving the point that any player can claim that the bottom of their vehicle is a base for all intents and purposes, and there is no RAW that anyone on Dakka is going to find saying they can't.

Premise 1: Paint on the bottom of a skimmer may act as a base.

Premise 2: In every currently extant case this is larger than the provided "flying" base.

Conclusion: A skimmer without a flying base counts the outline of it's hull as it's base.

 

Booyah!

What if the bottom of the skimmer isn't painted?

This is simply ridiculous. Everyone acknowledges that the rules for bases completely fall apart when dealing with skimmers. If you can't come to a friendly agreement with your opponent before or during the game, then you're just playing the wrong game here.

Posted By blue loki on 04/25/2006 7:52 AM

Posted By Legacy40k on 04/24/2006 7:46 PM
Lots and lots of people do not use bases on their skimmers.

-Legacy40k

Lots and lots of people believe in the Easter Bunny too.

Many people doing something incorrectly does not make it right.

And billions of people believe in god, but try telling them that that "he" doesn't exist.

I was touched by His noodly appendage.

Posted By Legacy40k on 04/30/2006 8:53 AM
And billions of people believe in god, but try telling them that that "he" doesn't exist.

Ok,

1. Keep you religious shiznit to yourself and out of YMDC.  If you can't prove it logically, it doesn't belong here. I prefer facts over myths.

2. What is your point? Many people believing that something is true does not make it true. For thousands of years, virtually the entire human race believed that the world was flat. Was it?

 

You have fallen victim to one of the classic blunders!
The most famous is, of course, this: never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
And the third, which you have fallen prey to, is this: never enter a religious argument with an educated Pastafarian.

 

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

You have fallen victim to one of the classic blunders!
The most famous is, of course, this: never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
And the third, which you have fallen prey to, is this: never enter a religious argument with an educated Pastafarian.

Hey, what ever happened to, "Don't invade Russia during winter"?

Posted By bigchris1313 on 05/01/2006 12:16 PM
Hey, what ever happened to, "Don't invade Russia during winter"?

I think that falls well within the bounds of the Prime classic blunder.

With today's military, classic blunder number one can be achieved....but shhhh...don't tell the Chinese and Russians that.... Capt K

Posted By CaptKaruthors on 05/01/2006 2:15 PM
With today's military, classic blunder number one can be achieved....but shhhh...don't tell the Chinese and Russians that.... Capt K

Classic blunder #1 lies more in the inability to control the populace than to relly 'win the war' sinc ehte fighitng would continue on forever. The US can't even control Iraq and they have the most modern military out there, how would they control Asia?