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.

So, after thinking about this for a while, and being a fairly new player I feel that this might be a stupid question but,.......in the section for skimmer movement the Rulebook mentions that a skimmer model must "at the end of it's movement phase be placed back onto the table". My question is, do they mean the model itself must be taken off it's flying base and placed on the table, or the model ON it's base needs to be placed back on the table. I feel like it should be the second one otherwise things like fish of fury wouldn't work, but I'd like to know how you guys have read this rule.

Also, does the other part that says it can't end over any friendly or enemy models mean that if the model on it's base must be put back on the table, that no model can be under any part of the skimmer model, or just underneath the flying base?

Thank you for any answers.

N1nj4Br34dm4n wrote:So, after thinking about this for a while, and being a fairly new player I feel that this might be a stupid question but,.......in the section for skimmer movement the Rulebook mentions that a skimmer model must "at the end of it's movement phase be placed back onto the table". My question is, do they mean the model itself must be taken off it's flying base and placed on the table, or the model ON it's base needs to be placed back on the table. I feel like it should be the second one otherwise things like fish of fury wouldn't work, but I'd like to know how you guys have read this rule.

You cannot remove the skimmer from the base for any reason, as long as it's in play (i.e. not destroyed). That rule is simply to keep people from holding the skimmer way up in the air and saying it's still flying, to keep you from drawing range with melta weapons or what have you.

N1nj4Br34dm4n wrote:Also, does the other part that says it can't end over any friendly or enemy models mean that if the model on it's base must be put back on the table, that no model can be under any part of the skimmer model, or just underneath the flying base?

They can't be placed underneath the hull, not just the base. Despite skimmers having a base, measurements are made from their hull in all cases (with exceptions such as the Valkyrie). So you can't have models underneath the engines of a Hammerhead or what have you.

N1nj4Br34dm4n wrote:So, after thinking about this for a while, and being a fairly new player I feel that this might be a stupid question but,.......in the section for skimmer movement the Rulebook mentions that a skimmer model must "at the end of it's movement phase be placed back onto the table". My question is, do they mean the model itself must be taken off it's flying base and placed on the table, or the model ON it's base needs to be placed back on the table. I feel like it should be the second one otherwise things like fish of fury wouldn't work, but I'd like to know how you guys have read this rule.

It's a badly-written rule, and you're not the first to question it.

They simply mean that the model has to be placed on the table when you finish its movement. You can't consider it to be floating up above the table, despite being a 'flying' model. You don't have to remove the base after each movement... wouldn't be much point having the base in the first place if that were the case.

Also, does the other part that says it can't end over any friendly or enemy models mean that if the model on it's base must be put back on the table, that no model can be under any part of the skimmer model, or just underneath the flying base?

It doesn't specify the base alone... just that the skimmer can't end its movement over other models. So technically that would arguably include any part of the skimmer.

That's lead to some discussion in the case of models like the Valkyrie... the wings stick out a ways, and opinions are divided as to whether they should be considered part of the vehicle's hull, and whether parts of the vehicle that aren't hull should matter for any in-game effect. So some players choose to apply the rule in question solely to the hull and/or flight base.

SaintHazard wrote:
You cannot remove the skimmer from the base for any reason, as long as it's in play (i.e. not destroyed). That rule is simply to keep people from holding the skimmer way up in the air and saying it's still flying, to keep you from drawing range with melta weapons or what have you.

I thought you measured vertically on a 2d plane to determine range as otherwise you'd be pythagorassing all day? I recall it was specifically mentioned in last edition but I'm not sure about this one.

Phototoxin wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
You cannot remove the skimmer from the base for any reason, as long as it's in play (i.e. not destroyed). That rule is simply to keep people from holding the skimmer way up in the air and saying it's still flying, to keep you from drawing range with melta weapons or what have you.

I thought you measured vertically on a 2d plane to determine range as otherwise you'd be pythagorassing all day? I recall it was specifically mentioned in last edition but I'm not sure about this one.

If that were true, ruins with multiple levels would be a lot more useful - my Fire Warriors could sit three levels up, it'd take forever for you to assault them, and they'd have two shots at everything within 12" of the ruin.

Movement is measured on a 2-dimensional plane.

Shooting is measured directly. If that's at an angle, so be it. You don't have to whip out the Pythagorean Theorem for this... just place your measuring tape at an angle.

Phototoxin wrote:I thought you measured vertically on a 2d plane to determine range as otherwise you'd be pythagorassing all day? I recall it was specifically mentioned in last edition but I'm not sure about this one.

You measure from model's base to model's base (or hull, in the case of vehicles). Nowhere do the rules tell you to ignore the vertical plane.

Nor did they do so last edition.

SaintHazard wrote:Movement is measured on a 2-dimensional plane.

A common assumption that is also not included in the rules. We're told to measure the distance the model moves. Again, nowhere do the rules tell you to ignore vertical distance.

I will grant though that measuring movement horizontally is by far the most common way (at least from my experience) of playing it.

insaniak wrote:A common assumption that is also not included in the rules. We're told to measure the distance the model moves. Again, nowhere do the rules tell you to ignore vertical distance.

I will grant though that measuring movement horizontally is by far the most common way (at least from my experience) of playing it.

Sure it is. If we can move at a diagonal, then there's really no reason to define the distance between levels of a ruin, and we can just go ahead and move that rough 2.5" diagonally to get up to the first level, or, even the rough 7" to get up to the third level! Access points are a thing of the past!

Or, while we're at it, let's just go ahead and "hop" over that impassible terrain, because while we can't climb it, we can certainly fly over it. We can even hop over enemy units without being jump infantry, as long as our bases are an inch from theirs as we go over top of them. Right?

If movement is no longer on a 2-dimensional plane, we're suddenly playing a very different game.

SaintHazard wrote:Sure it is. If we can move at a diagonal, then there's really no reason to define the distance between levels of a ruin, and we can just go ahead and move that rough 2.5" diagonally to get up to the first level, or, even the rough 7" to get up to the third level! Access points are a thing of the past!

There's every reason to define the levels in the ruin if the intention was to a) standardise how different ruin models work in the game and b) limit how far models can move through them in a turn by forcing them to count horizontal and vertical movement separately.

Or, while we're at it, let's just go ahead and "hop" over that impassible terrain, because while we can't climb it, we can certainly fly over it. We can even hop over enemy units without being jump infantry, as long as our bases are an inch from theirs as we go over top of them. Right?

I'm a little puzzled as to how you get from 'measure the distance the model moves' to 'Look, Ma, I can fly!'

If movement is no longer on a 2-dimensional plane, we're suddenly playing a very different game.

Movement has never been on a 2-dimensional plane, other than in specific cases like movement in ruins in the current edition. Again, we're told to measure the distance the model moves. We're not told to ignore the surface upon which it is moving. My reading of that is, and always has been, that this means following the contours of the terrain, since that's the model's actual movement path.

For convenience's sake unless the terrain is particularly lumpy, this generally gets 'condensed' into just measuring the horizontal for ease and speed, as it doesn't make a great deal of difference. But the 40K rules have never specified that we should only measure movement on the horizontal plane.

insaniak wrote:There's every reason to define the levels in the ruin if the intention was to a) standardise how different ruin models work in the game and b) limit how far models can move through them in a turn by forcing them to count horizontal and vertical movement separately.

You just killed your own argument by admitting that horizontal and vertical movement are seperate.

If horizontal and vertical movement are counted seperately, then movement cannot be on anything but a two-dimensional plane.

Note that I did not say two-dimensional planes could not be on different axes. Horizontal movement is one two-dimensional plane. Vertical movement is another two-dimensional plane. But you cannot move in three dimensions under any circumstances other than those that specifically allow it (e.g. jump infantry, skimmers, jetbikes). And even with them, you're still moving on a two-dimensional horizontal plane, just ignoring the presence of the Z axis!

On its base. I think.

Thank you all for the quick replies. That's what I had thought, but it's always best to be sure.

Although, I never in a million years thought my question would 'cause a discussion about horizontal and vertical planes and measuring distances. But it was definitely interesting.

SaintHazard wrote:You just killed your own argument by admitting that horizontal and vertical movement are seperate.

...in Ruins.

I think the best example of ignoring vertical movement is in the case of walls. You typically measure to the wall, the top of it, and then along the other side to get your total movement distance.

People typically don't take into account the 0.5" or so up one side of the wall and down the other. But, RAW, you really should.

insaniak wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:You just killed your own argument by admitting that horizontal and vertical movement are seperate.

...in Ruins.

Yes. And that's the whole point. We're talking about moving in ruins. It's effectively the only place you can move vertically without being jump infantry, a jetbike, or a skimmer.

If you wanna talk about moving in impassible terrain, that's fine. I can do that too. Watch:

You can't do it, because it's impassible.

Whoo, that took some effort.

()

SaintHazard wrote:Yes. And that's the whole point. We're talking about moving in ruins. It's effectively the only place you can move vertically without being jump infantry, a jetbike, or a skimmer.

You might have been talking about ruins. I was talking about movement in general. The fact that we were talking about two different things does at least explain how you missed my point so completely.

Models move vertically any time you have terrain on the board that isn't perfectly flat. The rules don't tell us to ignore this vertical distance... if the model is standing on a slope, you should be measuring the model's actual path up the slope, not just measuring the horizontal component of it.

Most people don't... Measuring by just holding the tape horizontally above the table is by far the most common way of doing it. But the rules don't actually ever say that measurement for movement anywhere other than in ruins is purely on a horizontal plane. And, frankly, I would think that the reference to horizontal movement in the Ruins rules is based solely on the premise that the floors in Ruins are generally flat... all they're actually saying is that you measure movement along the floor, and movement between levels separately.

Again, it's you who's missing the point. Move at an angle all you want, you're still moving on a two-dimensional plane. The only time you're allowed to move freely along the Z axis is, again, if you're jump infantry, a jetbike, or a skimmer. That's it. A two-dimensional plane tilted at 22 degrees (or whatever) is still a two-dimensional plane, though. You don't move along the Z axis in the case of normal infantry (or vehicles), because there isn't one.

Well, yes, I'm certainly going to miss the point if you continue to change the argument as you go.

What I originally questioned was your claim that measurement for movement is purely horizontal. It's not, although it's generally played that way.

Nowhere have I ever claimed that models could move freely into the air. All I'm saying is that models should move along the terrain, not purely horizontally. If the terrain is not perfectly flat, that is going to include vertical distance, and measuring purely on the horizontal plane is therefore not going to be accurate.

SaintHazard what insaniak is trying to say is that you are always moving on a two-dimensional plane, but the plane that distance is measured in must always be the same plane that the model is moving in.

bellumdominus wrote:SaintHazard what insaniak is trying to say is that you are always moving on a two-dimensional plane, but the plane that distance is measured in must always be the same plane that the model is moving in.

insaniak wrote:Well, yes, I'm certainly going to miss the point if you continue to change the argument as you go.

What I originally questioned was your claim that measurement for movement is purely horizontal. It's not, although it's generally played that way.

Nowhere have I ever claimed that models could move freely into the air. All I'm saying is that models should move along the terrain, not purely horizontally. If the terrain is not perfectly flat, that is going to include vertical distance, and measuring purely on the horizontal plane is therefore not going to be accurate.

Well sure, nobody's arguing against THAT.

I thought Insianiak was trying to say that movement is three-dimensional in nature, when in fact it is not. It is simply on a morphing two-dimensional plane.

Does this mean that this argument is done?

SaintHazard wrote:I thought Insianiak was trying to say that movement is three-dimensional in nature, when in fact it is not. It is simply on a morphing two-dimensional plane.

No, I was saying that it's 3-dimensional in nature. That's not the same as saying that models can move freely into the air, though.

2 dimensional movement would require either than the board be completely flat, or that you ignore vertical distance when measuring... which, as I pointed out, is not what the rules say to do.

If a model starts on the flat surface of the table, moves across the table and then up the side of a hill, they have moved both horizontally and vertically.

And here I have measured vertical distances with my gargoyles all this time, when going over a unit instead of around.

insaniak wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I thought Insianiak was trying to say that movement is three-dimensional in nature, when in fact it is not. It is simply on a morphing two-dimensional plane.

No, I was saying that it's 3-dimensional in nature. That's not the same as saying that models can move freely into the air, though.

2 dimensional movement would require either than the board be completely flat, or that you ignore vertical distance when measuring... which, as I pointed out, is not what the rules say to do.

If a model starts on the flat surface of the table, moves across the table and then up the side of a hill, they have moved both horizontally and vertically.

That's not how geometry works, but okay.

SaintHazard wrote:

insaniak wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I thought Insianiak was trying to say that movement is three-dimensional in nature, when in fact it is not. It is simply on a morphing two-dimensional plane.

No, I was saying that it's 3-dimensional in nature. That's not the same as saying that models can move freely into the air, though.

2 dimensional movement would require either than the board be completely flat, or that you ignore vertical distance when measuring... which, as I pointed out, is not what the rules say to do.

If a model starts on the flat surface of the table, moves across the table and then up the side of a hill, they have moved both horizontally and vertically.

That's not how geometry works, but okay.

Could you explain yourself a bit better Saint, I'm having a hard time following you...