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.

It's been assumed in this thread that models count as terrain; specifically that they count as impassable terrain.

Is this so?

I've brought this here as to not bog down a tactics thread with rules debate.

Yes models count as impassible terrain. Check in the rulebook - although I don't recall the page offhand, under the impassible terrain section.

Yep, all models friend or foe are impassable terrain.

Page please.

The page talking about terrain (also known as page 13).

Bottom left column.

So does that mean that if a skimmer can land on a vehicle/unit and stay on it, its ok? As they can land on impassible terrain if their model won't fall off?

Could be fun

*plonk*

My Monolith's floating above your nicely painted unit that it's crushing

CoI wrote:So does that mean that if a skimmer can land on a vehicle/unit and stay on it, its ok? As they can land on impassible terrain if their model won't fall off?

Pg 71:
"Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but cannot end their move on top of either."

To OP: Yes, the model and its base count as impassable terrain.

Forgot that part, thanks. But I could land on top of a wrecked rhino easily enough as it's no longer considered a model, but terrain correct?

Correct, but anything can end up on a wrecked Rhino, because when a vehicle is wrecked it becomes Dangerous and Difficult terrain, and is no longer classified as Impassable.

Remember that models not only count as impassable terrain but that also models cannot move within 1" of enemy models. So models are impassable terrain with a 1" barrier around them...at least most of the time. The 1' barrier does disappear at times, such as when a unit is being assaulted it then disappears.

The skimer rule is interesting because while skimmers cannot move over other models, the reverse is fine. Other models can move under skimmers and end their movement under skimmers.



Sliggoth

It disappears when a unit assaults, not necessarily when IT is the target of an assault - as a small clarification.

If a skimmer cannot end it's turn ontop of another model then why is it not understood that another model cannot end it's turn under a skimmer?

Sure you can say "because it's not stated", but at what point do we say "when writing the rules, GW obviously expects us to inherently understand this"? They don't state that chainswords can't shoot, but everyone inherently understands it.

So if you look at the 'understanding in question' as a mathematical formula then it looks like: 'skimmers cannot end their turn on top of other models = other models cannot end their turn under skimmers'. Yes or no?

I only debate this because it has come up more than once in my FLGS.

Because you are commoiting a basic logical fallacy with your assertion?

A- > B DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT B->A

Mathematically if A=B then B=A.

But that's not the point. I just mean to ask what is the consensus on how to interpret this and why?

To me it's 'because a skimmer can't end it's turn ontop of another model then another model can't end it's turn under a skimmer'.

Cypher - this is not an equivalence statement, it is a logical "implies" statement.

You have committed a basic logical fallacy with your statement.

Right. So is it more logical to say that A (skimmers cannot end their turn on top of other models) = B (models cannot end their turn under skimmers), or that A =/= B?

If the '=' bothers you so much then simply replace it with 'therefore'. It simply makes sense to me to put it the way I put it because math works based on logic (albeit concrete, defined logic, where as this is an interpretation problem, and therefore could be viewed as abstract).

The thing is, how often is it even going to be an issue?

In most cases, the height of the skimmer base precludes models from moving underneath it anyway. There are a couple of exceptions, like the Valk and Stormraven (although in that case, you're at best moving under the wings) and certain models might squeeze under grav tanks mounted on GW's tallest flight stem (which people rarely use for them, because it sucks for balance, and they generally come standard with the shorter pair). But in most cases, the rule against moving through other models is going to prevent this from happening anyway.

Not very often to be sure (so infrequently in fact that it makes the issue almost irrelevant, as is your point insaniak), but then most debatable issues within the rules only become such under a very special set of circumstances anyway. The nature of their infrequency adds to their ability to be so diversely interpreted. Which is to say that flagrant and frequent holes in the rules don't last long due to FAQs and Errata 'patches'.

Oh well, OP's question has been answered so in the interest of not getting horribly off-topic I suppose the skimmer question could stand to be dropped.

Well its not really the point of how often it happens, it has happened and we need justice !!

Thanks for catching my lack of clarity there nos, sometimes my fingers dont type all of what my brain thinks, heh. Yes, the 1" barrier only disappears for the assaulting unit.

If models couldnt be placed/ move under skimmers then we would have even more fun watching IG players try and fit those beasts onto the table. Valk/ vends take up so much roon that often an IG player simply has no choice but to deploy/ move some infantry under part of the model.


The skimmer rule is about models ending their movement above other models. Why would we think that other models cannot move under a skimmer? Even skimmers can move under other skimmers. The more logical rai would be to conclude that no model can end their movement over another model...in those rare tabletop situations that it can occur (cliffs etc).



Sliggoth