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.

Landing Gear: What is its purpose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what is the markerlight target designator on pathfinder weaponry? Im new to Tau.

In 5th edition, it doesn't help at all. But in 4th, a skimmer had to be above certain terrain pieces and therefore couldn't gain the benefit of being obscured by it. With landing gear, Tau were able to land their vehicles in the terrain and gain the benefit of being obscured.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the markerlight target designator is just a markerlight. you can find rules on it on page 29

thanks.

Well, it's been a while since I've played Tau, but should the landing gear let you take the model on and off the flying base, thus changing LOS rules?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Well, it's been a while since I've played Tau, but should the landing gear let you take the model on and off the flying base, thus changing LOS rules?

This is what my friend does (who plays Tau). He'll use his handing gear in order to hide behind terrain or use his tank to shelter units behind it. Anyone know if this is legal and can you provide page numbers?

Landing gear give you the option somewhere along the lines of if you didn't move in the turns movement phase, you can use the landing gear to count the vehicle as a non-skimmer for the turn. Somthing like that, can't qoute it i'm at work.

mazik765 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Well, it's been a while since I've played Tau, but should the landing gear let you take the model on and off the flying base, thus changing LOS rules?

This is what my friend does (who plays Tau). He'll use his handing gear in order to hide behind terrain or use his tank to shelter units behind it. Anyone know if this is legal and can you provide page numbers?

Yes this is legal as long as he doesn't move, and physically removes the model from the base. p. 30 under landing gear.

It does serve a purpose, you could remove the flying base to stop enemies from gaining LOS to your vehicle.

Not entirely correct. It tells you to stop counting the vehicle as a skimmer. It doesn't tell you to remove it from its base.

Which was probably deliberate to allow people to use the rule even if they had glued their tank to the base

insaniak wrote:Not entirely correct. It tells you to stop counting the vehicle as a skimmer. It doesn't tell you to remove it from its base.

However the only type of vehicle with a clear base is a skimmer. Logic and practicality deem the base is removed.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:

insaniak wrote:Not entirely correct. It tells you to stop counting the vehicle as a skimmer. It doesn't tell you to remove it from its base.

However the only type of vehicle with a clear base is a skimmer. Logic and practicality deem the base is removed.

Logic and practicality rarely coincide with 40k rules. Landing serves zero purpose in 5th edition. It still exists because the codex is so old. In previous edition(s), skimmers were capable of being destroyed on immobilized results.

ork_smash wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:

insaniak wrote:Not entirely correct. It tells you to stop counting the vehicle as a skimmer. It doesn't tell you to remove it from its base.

However the only type of vehicle with a clear base is a skimmer. Logic and practicality deem the base is removed.

Logic and practicality rarely coincide with 40k rules. Landing serves zero purpose in 5th edition. It still exists because the codex is so old. In previous edition(s), skimmers were capable of being destroyed on immobilized results.

Logic and practicality should drive how you play the friendly game; however, competitive play should be determined by a combination of RAW, logic, and practicality.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:However the only type of vehicle with a clear base is a skimmer.

What does that have to do with it?

The type of base has no bearing on whether or not you're allowed to remove it. The rules only give us one situation in which the skimmer's base can be removed, and that's when the skiimmer is damaged.

It's far more practical to leave the base on than to remove it... and real-world logic quite regularly takes a back seat to abstract rules mechanics.

insaniak wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:However the only type of vehicle with a clear base is a skimmer.

What does that have to do with it?

The type of base has no bearing on whether or not you're allowed to remove it. The rules only give us one situation in which the skimmer's base can be removed, and that's when the skiimmer is damaged.

It's far more practical to leave the base on than to remove it... and real-world logic quite regularly takes a back seat to abstract rules mechanics.

It has plenty to do with it. If you did not ignore my previous post, it would be clear to you. For terms of practicality and logic in friendly games, logic would dictate this:
if a is a skimmer then b has a clear plastic base. If b does not have a plastic base then a is not a skimmer. So how do we make it not a skimmer? By removing the plastic base. In terms of practicality, we are talking about applications of Tau landing gear. Practicality would deem it should be removed, as is the equipment would be useless without such removal. I am afraid you considered practicality a matter of expenditure of energy. Ho Hum. Now following my previous post for competitive play RAW must be considered. This time you are right. There is no rule for the removal of the plastic base, so by RAW the landing gear does nothing, but we all knew that.

Logic should never take a back set in anything. How else do we knew how to apply abstract rules mechanics?

purpleboxbluebox wrote:if a is a skimmer then b has a clear plastic base. If b does not have a plastic base then a is not a skimmer.

Unless it's a Monolith.

The presence or absence of a flight base is not what makes a model a skimmer. Having rules that say it is a skimmer is what does that.

So how do we make it not a skimmer?

We say 'See that? That's not a skimmer.'

There is no requirement to remove the base, just as there is no specific requirement for it to have one in order to have been a skimmer to begin with.

I am afraid you considered practicality a matter of expenditure of energy.

No, I considered practicality in terms of reducing the handling of the miniature, which is the best aim in a game where the positioning of the models is important.

Logic should never take a back set in anything. How else do we knew how to apply abstract rules mechanics?

Note that I actually said 'real world logic'... Whether or not something makes sense to you in real-world terms is ultimately less important in a game that uses abstract mechanics to represent real-world actions than what those rules actually say to do.

The presence or absence of a flight base is not what makes a model a skimmer. Having rules that say it is a skimmer is what does that.

You are missing the point of giving practical application to Tau Landing Gear. I was providing a logical approach to this only in terms of the skimmer's base by citing the example that there is nothing that is a vehicle, a skimmer, and does not have a plastic base.

We say 'See that? That's not a skimmer.'

Or we could remove the base. One gives purpose to the rules and provides a visual representation of what is actually happening in the game.

There is no requirement to remove the base, just as there is no specific requirement for it to have one in order to have been a skimmer to begin with.

I agreed with you on this point in the previous post; by RAW, there is no requirement to remove the base. Once again ignoring RAW of skimmer rules, there is no skimmer without a flying base thus we can say that if something does not have a flying base it is not a skimmer.

No, I considered practicality in terms of reducing the handling of the miniature, which is the best aim in a game where the positioning of the models is important.

No, the best aim of the game is to provide physical representation of the abstract rules of an abstract world; though, I concede to you the point that in a competitive game the base should not removed thus preserving the integrity of the model's position.

Note that I actually said 'real world logic'... Whether or not something makes sense to you in real-world terms is ultimately less important in a game that uses abstract mechanics to represent real-world actions than what those rules actually say to do.

I was referring to logic as a whole as in a implies b not as in all bolters are guns, which makes you counterpoint of real-world logic invalid. I think you are getting caught in the abstractness of rules. Rules should make logical sense. It is logical that the physical displacement of the concept of a Space Marine running is represented by displacement of the models. Such that it is logical that a vehicle with landing gears lands represented by the physical removal of the flying base. This restores practicality to the equipment, which is the goal of my argument. Like I stated before in competitive play RAW must take precedent; therefore, the flying base is not removed and the Tau vehicle losses it skimmer status. This is opposed to as in a friendly game where the flying base is removed to represent the use of tau landing gears.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:You are missing the point of giving practical application to Tau Landing Gear.

Yes, I am. There is no practical point to Tau Landing Gear in 5th edition 40K. There were introduced in a version of the game that treated skimmers and terrain very differently, and were rendered obsolete when those rules changed.

I was providing a logical approach to this only in terms of the skimmer's base by citing the example that there is nothing that is a vehicle, a skimmer, and does not have a plastic base.

And I was pointing out that your conclusion that 'skimmer = flight base' was wrong. We probably don't need to keep circling around the same point, though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with removing the base as a house rule. I simply don't think it's necessary, and disagree that it is 'the' logical and practical option. Leaving it on there is every bit as logical and practical (and arguably moreso) within the strictures of the game rules as they currently stand. Removing the base simply satisfies the 'need' to represent the skimmer landing physically.

insaniak wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:You are missing the point of giving practical application to Tau Landing Gear.

Yes, I am. There is no practical point to Tau Landing Gear in 5th edition 40K. There were introduced in a version of the game that treated skimmers and terrain very differently, and were rendered obsolete when those rules changed.

I was providing a logical approach to this only in terms of the skimmer's base by citing the example that there is nothing that is a vehicle, a skimmer, and does not have a plastic base.

And I was pointing out that your conclusion that 'skimmer = flight base' was wrong. We probably don't need to keep circling around the same point, though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with removing the base as a house rule. I simply don't think it's necessary, and disagree that it is 'the' logical and practical option. Leaving it on there is every bit as logical and practical (and arguably moreso) within the strictures of the game rules as they currently stand. Removing the base simply satisfies the 'need' to represent the skimmer landing physically.

I never made the conclusion that skimmer=flight base. I made the conclusion that all skimmers have a flight base, which is not a rule but a practical observation from which I then infer that (ignoring strict rules) the flight stand should be removed for the purposes of the Tau Landing Gear. My argument is not based on the premises of RAW and a house rule in response (which you argue for), but instead is based on the principles in which two players enter into a friendly match and the logic which is used to determine how the Tau Landing Gear operate within the confines of said game. This "need" is to provide the greatest possible enjoyment for both players, not to satisfy the "need" of physical representation or the "need" to always operate within the confines of strict english interpretation.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:I never made the conclusion that skimmer=flight base. I made the conclusion that all skimmers have a flight base, ...

Which, again, is incorrect. See the afore-mentioned Monolith for a big shiny example of this in action.

...but instead is based on the principles in which two players enter into a friendly match and the logic which is used to determine how the Tau Landing Gear operate within the confines of said game.

If you're ignoring the rules in favour of doing it differently, that's a house rule. The fact that it seems like the logical way to play it doesn't change that.

insaniak wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:I never made the conclusion that skimmer=flight base. I made the conclusion that all skimmers have a flight base, ...

Which, again, is incorrect. See the afore-mentioned Monolith for a big shiny example of this in action.

...but instead is based on the principles in which two players enter into a friendly match and the logic which is used to determine how the Tau Landing Gear operate within the confines of said game.

If you're ignoring the rules in favour of doing it differently, that's a house rule. The fact that it seems like the logical way to play it doesn't change that.

You need to go back to basic logic. The premise all skimmers have a flight base is not violated by the premise the Monolith has a flight base and is not a skimmer.
think of it like this

Sx- x is a skimmer
Fx- x has a flight base
Mx- x is a Monolith

Sx > Fx

Mx * Fx * ~Sx

I don't disagree with your second point that it is called a house rule but my argument still holds using the formulation that all friendly games should be played using logic therefore it is logical for the flight base to be removed. Whether you call it a house rule does not matter. If you follow my formulation the flight base is removed in all possible games that are friendly. In fact there is no rule which is being directly violated, and for the sack of argument pay attention to the use of the word directly. Use of logic bridges the small gap required to infer a rule for equipment which worked last edition for it to work this edition with a small change to GAP.

You keep using this word, Logic. I do not think it means what you think it means.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:You need to go back to basic logic. The premise all skimmers have a flight base is not violated by the premise the Monolith has a flight base and is not a skimmer.

If I had been saying that the Monolith has a flight base but is not a skimmer, you might have a point.

I don't disagree with your second point that it is called a house rule but my argument still holds using the formulation that all friendly games should be played using logic therefore it is logical for the flight base to be removed.

There's a few steps missing there.

Whether you call it a house rule does not matter.

On a rules discussion board, making the distinction between house rules and actual rules most certainly does matter. It's one of the rules of posting here, in fact.

If you follow my formulation the flight base is removed in all possible games that are friendly.

That would only apply if everybody agrees that removing the flight base is the logical thing to do. I'm fairly sure I already pointed out that this simply isn't the case.

In fact there is no rule which is being directly violated, and for the sack of argument pay attention to the use of the word directly.

More importantly, there is no rule that actually allows you to remove the base... therefore it is not an option. Hence the requirement for a house rule in order to remove it.

Darkjediben wrote:You keep using this word, Logic. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think it means exactly what I think it means or the thing things. Also yours is an asinine post. Without showing what I think logic should be and what you think it should be your argument is invalid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If I had been saying that the Monolith has a flight base but is not a skimmer, you might have a point.

My argument. We need to establish this before we can move on.

All skimmers have a flight base.

Your counter example

The monolith, though you did not provide it an argument form or any argument that is for the monolith all you have said is the monolith is a big shining example against my premise.

I need you to put into words why the monolith violates the premise: All skimmers have a flight base.

Monoliths are skimmers.

They do not come with a flight base, and will snap righty off one if you try to mount one on one.

therefore not all skimmers have a flight base


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Premise Violated

wow. simple question promotes a huge argument... isnt there actual threads for this?

Ascalam wrote:Monoliths are skimmers.

They do not come with a flight base, and will snap righty off one if you try to mount one on one.

therefore not all skimmers have a flight base


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Premise Violated

I bought two Monoliths. They both had flight bases and there is a hole to put the flight base in. I mounted them on a flight base. It did not break off though you have to use the tiny half inch stands. I would have no problem with someone not using a flight base with it.

I have bought 10, over the years.

None have come with flight bases.

I've tried mounting the on bases a few times, but every time the table gets bumped the Lith tumbles and snaps the base off.

No-one i've ever played has used flight bases with them (though if you wanted to it's ok by me) and they are never shown with them in official pics i've seen, except one pic in the codex (out of 3).

Ascalam wrote:I have bought 10, over the years.

None have come with flight bases.

I've tried mounting the on bases a few times, but every time the table gets bumped the Lith tumbles and snaps the base off.

No-one i've ever played has used flight bases with them (though if you wanted to it's ok by me) and they are never shown with them in official pics i've seen, except one pic in the codex (out of 3).

You obviously had a mispack. Call GW and demand free flight stands. The key is to use heaps of glue or replace the plastic rod with a metal rod.

As far as I'm aware there is only 1 rule in place that allows you to remove a skimmers base. An immobilized result on the damage chart. Logic here shows that if you remove the base of a skimmer for the purposes of using the landing gear you are also immobilized.

Taking away the base for the purposes of utilizing the landing gear is a house rule and that's fine. But for the purposes of following the written rules it's not. I also believe the main rulebook FAQ covers what to do when obsolete rules come to the fore...ignore them.