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.

The thing is, given that the game uses 3d models and terrain, why would you assume that it's not 3D unless the rules specifically say as much?

Apparently because I'm stupid and weak willed. I, and a lot of other gamers, simply have always played that way. There is no freedom of movement in the Z-axis, so that's a big factor. You can move as you wish front and back, side to side, but you can't leave your skimmers 24" in the air, so I think that leads people to 2D thinking.

It's like the original Doom: yeah, you moved up and down, but not freely.

Polonius wrote:There is no freedom of movement in the Z-axis, so that's a big factor. You can move as you wish front and back, side to side, but you can't leave your skimmers 24" in the air, so I think that leads people to 2D thinking.

I'm not following... You can move freely on the Z axis, so long as there's something to stand on. That's a big part of where the 3D terrain comes in.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not seeing how a Space Marine's inability to stand on empty air should affect measuring distances between two objects.

insaniak wrote:

Polonius wrote:There is no freedom of movement in the Z-axis, so that's a big factor. You can move as you wish front and back, side to side, but you can't leave your skimmers 24" in the air, so I think that leads people to 2D thinking.

I'm not following... You can move freely on the Z axis, so long as there's something to stand on. That's a big part of where the 3D terrain comes in.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not seeing how a Space Marine's inability to stand on empty air should affect measuring distances between two objects.

Because, it means that 40k is only 3d when it absolutely has to be. Ruins, aiming at things at increased heights, LOS, that sort of thing. These are things that force special rules to deal with a 3d world.

Look, I'm not arguing a point here. I've read the rules cover to cover, and there is simply no way I buy the notion that 40k is 100% 3d. I'm clearly outnumbered, and I'll play however people play, but the RAW you propose requires models having the ability to move freely in 3d, which they don't have.

So, you can argue all you want, but when you apply a logical system and get a preposterous result, sometimes you check your axioms.

I agree with the people saying 40k isn't fully adapted to 3d measurements.

Sure, there are 3d elements (terrain can have elevated levels of height, some models are taller than others) but there is no real adaption for some other 3 dimensional things.

For example.... Jet packs. Can move 6 inches of jet flight. However, if I use their jetpacks to jump 6 inches over another squad, the distance travelled along my jump arc is obviously going to be more than 6 inches. Yet people are ok with me jumping over a squad that is 1 inch tall (moving 6 inches horizontally) yet if I jump over a 10 inch wall (moving 6 inches horizontally) people complain.
Unless you all bend your tape measures into a parabola every time you move your jump infantry...?

I think the real issue is that the rules don't have any clear explanation or ruling of models which are significantly above ground level. The ruins section obviously doesn't work in a totally 3d way (Ie, you put the blast on a 2d plane) but is the only real indication we have. Nothing else in the core rules has any clear resolution for a model who's hull is 5 inches off the ground, and it is very strange to me that people are trying to apply obviously faulty rules to the situation.

And as for amicable agreement before a game starts... what if BOTH people try to make a quick resolution before the game, from opposite viewpoints?

Polonius wrote:Ruins, aiming at things at increased heights, LOS, that sort of thing.

So, like, pretty much all the time, then...?

The very fact that the game uses 3D models and terrain, and uses the profiles of those 3D models and terrain for determining movement and LOS, should be more than enough to show that the game is inherently 3D.

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to argue the point either. I'm trying to understand what your point is, because it simply doesn't make any sense so far.

but the RAW you propose requires models having the ability to move freely in 3d, which they don't have.

Sorry, but it does nothing of the sort.

I can't move vertically upwards without having something to climb. Does that make me inherently 2-dimensional?

Whether or not a model can move in empty air has no effect whatsoever on whether or not their height has any impact on the game. It would do if we were talking about, say, a space battle game... but we're talking about a land-based wargame. Infantry can't move freely in the Z axis without support because of gravity, not because the Z axis doesn't exist.

There are about four references to the z-axis in the rulebook. All are very specific, very detailed, and explain things clearly. This, to me, implies that these are exceptions to an over all rule, not simply reminders of how the rule always works.

So, saying that models can't disembark a valkyrie because they can't reach the table top in the 2" of allocated disembarkation does not compute, because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.

Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down.

The problem, for me, with a z-axis that allows freer movment is that where models can rest becomes a bit more interesting. A lot of stores have thick forests that can support a model. Can jump troopers actually land on top of a canopy of trees? If not, why not? As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?

For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation. The flight stand is to make them easier to see.

We know that immobilized skimmers can get off their bases, and thus can "land."

So, my point is, the game makes just as much sense assuming that there is no Z-axis, and all references to it are exceptions to a general rule. It matches more closely the way most people play things that can move through the air, it makes more sense for rules like skimmers disembarking and the like, and it eliminates all kinds of nasty grey areas regarding skimmer bases.

I actually just thought of something interesting that also, whilst it could be played as RAW is very... off.

A Valkyrie next to a multi story building.
Assuming the building is such that models can disembark from the Valk to the top floor of the building.
There is a squad on the top floor of the building, and also one on the bottom floor.
Someone fires a blast weapon at the top floor unit. It scatters onto the Valkyrie. However, technically the Valk is immune to this, as it exists on the ground.
And conversely a shot fired at the valkyrie which scatters will hit the bottom floor unit.
Doesn't that seem a little strange to you?

Combine this with the disembarking onto the top floor. Even though the doors of your Rhino may be 2 inches tall, you're not allowed (or at least it would be the most beardy thing in the world to try) to disembark from a Rhino into the 2nd level of some ruins. The Valk is just another transport vehicle, higher up. Why does it get different treatment?

Polonius wrote:because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.

Why not?

Do your models not move up and down hills? If you have a model on the top of a short sheer face (short enough to be not impassable, as models could conceivably clamber down it) should the model not be able to move down that face?

Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down.

Pardon?

Sorry, you might need to explain that bit a little more thoroughly, because you've lost me completely.

The model on the hill is higher up because it's higher up, surely?

The problem, for me, with a z-axis that allows freer movment is that where models can rest becomes a bit more interesting. A lot of stores have thick forests that can support a model. Can jump troopers actually land on top of a canopy of trees? If not, why not?

I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as both players had agreed beforehand that the trees were strong enough to support troops, and the models can physically stand there.

Around here, we've always played that models can be placed wherever they can physically be placed, unless something is specifically classed as impassable.

As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?

They certainly should. Skimmers can move over terrain. Nothing in the rules suggests that they can ignore it for measurement purposes. It's no different to infantry movement... infantry measure the actual distance moved over a hill, skimmers measure the actual distance moved over a forest. All that changes is that the skimmer can move over things that infantry can't.

For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation.

Not everybody plays that way, sorry.

I've always dealt with skimmers just the same as any other model... by assuming that the physical position of the model is the model's actual location.

and it eliminates all kinds of nasty grey areas regarding skimmer bases.

Which grey areas are those?

Look, either you're being willfully obtuse, or I'm being incoherent. Either way, you're clearly not going to understand me. I mean no offense, I just can't think of any way to better articulate my thoughts.

Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down.

Pardon?
Sorry, you might need to explain that bit a little more thoroughly, because you've lost me completely.
The model on the hill is higher up because it's higher up, surely?

For nearly all aspects of the game, a model's z coordinates are a function of their x and y coordinates. In other words, X and Y are freely variable in most circumstances, but for any given X+Y there is generally only one Z, except for the case of ruins which we have very special rules to deal with. In ruins, Z is a nominated value that does not vary with X+Y as can be seen with the rules of placing blast markers. And rules for ruins are about the only real references that we have for models who's base/hull can be significantly above ground level.

because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.

Why not?
Do your models not move up and down hills? If you have a model on the top of a short sheer face (short enough to be not impassable, as models could conceivably clamber down it) should the model not be able to move down that face?

In which case we use a difficult terrain test for moving upwards. A special rule.

As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?

They certainly should. Skimmers can move over terrain. Nothing in the rules suggests that they can ignore it for measurement purposes. It's no different to infantry movement... infantry measure the actual distance moved over a hill, skimmers measure the actual distance moved over a forest. All that changes is that the skimmer can move over things that infantry can't.

It seems that in 40k most of the time we work on a 6 inch displacement range, rather than 6 inch distance. It is a very different situation from moving straight up a hill - or rather, it is exactly the same: you nominate a finish point 6 inches away from your start point and move there. Skimmers do the same.
I don't think you'll find anyone who will ever say that skimmers/jump infantry need to move in arcs, so this is just being deliberately obtuse.

For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation.

Not everybody plays that way, sorry.
I've always dealt with skimmers just the same as any other model... by assuming that the physical position of the model is the model's actual location.

My Tau skimmers are 1 inch in the air. I think. Does that mean that instead of having a 2 inch radius around my access points, I actually have 1.73 inches to deploy my troops in?

Can a Valkryie land?

My Tau skimmers are 1 inch in the air. I think. Does that mean that instead of having a 2 inch radius around my access points, I actually have 1.73 inches to deploy my troops in?

No, it means you have 2" from the hatch, measured in three dimensions. That may mean that you have to be 1.73 inches from the hatch horizontally, but that's pretty much the breaks.

You see blast weapons as an example of how 40k is 2D. I see blast weapons as a specific exemption to a generally 3D ruleset.

@Emperors Faithful: Valkyries landing has been covered several times in this thread. A skimmer may only be removed from its base if it is immobilized or wrecked.

Sorry, didn't want to read all these pages...
How about disembarking onto a building (if valkryie is level with it?

Well... by the very strictest of RAW that would be the only way to disembark "normally".

I think most players will allow (and expect) units to disembark around the base.

Hmmm, but I guess most playas should just go hell for leather and drop out of the damn thing. (Hint: Roll on Impact)

Right, sorry to butt in. Have now discussed this (surprisingly brief considering the thread sizE) with my gaming group. Very quickly we came to the following conclusion/house rule.

Skimmers that are supplied with parts to build them in a landed position (Valk, Hammerheads etc) will be able to 'land' at any point in their movement. Simply take the model off the flying base and set it down on it's landing feet. Models may also take off in the same mannor. This covers howvering just above ground etc. This also allows models with 'daft' bases like the valk to land behind a building for cover, as would be logical with those landing legs and vertical thrust jets.

Note this does not apply to all skimmers, just those that have a visual design that INCLUDES landing gear. Eldar, dark eldar, jet biokes, landspeeders etc. may not use this rule.

We know it doesn't make complete sense but solves the valk issue of disembarking in the most logical way we came up with, taking into consideration the spirit of the designer, while also being fair to other armies that also have the same logical apearance. We've not had any problems so far playing this way....

covenant84 wrote:Right, sorry to butt in. Have now discussed this (surprisingly brief considering the thread sizE) with my gaming group. Very quickly we came to the following conclusion/house rule.

Skimmers that are supplied with parts to build them in a landed position (Valk, Hammerheads etc) will be able to 'land' at any point in their movement. Simply take the model off the flying base and set it down on it's landing feet. Models may also take off in the same mannor. This covers howvering just above ground etc. This also allows models with 'daft' bases like the valk to land behind a building for cover, as would be logical with those landing legs and vertical thrust jets.

Note this does not apply to all skimmers, just those that have a visual design that INCLUDES landing gear. Eldar, dark eldar, jet biokes, landspeeders etc. may not use this rule.

We know it doesn't make complete sense but solves the valk issue of disembarking in the most logical way we came up with, taking into consideration the spirit of the designer, while also being fair to other armies that also have the same logical apearance. We've not had any problems so far playing this way....

While I think it's great you guys made some house rules, I can see problems if you ever play people from outside the same group.

We probablywill at some point, but none of us have had any problems with it so far (including playing a few games outside the group)

dumplingman wrote:
What I am most interested in seeing, is if GW actually FAQS the valk for these purposes or if they just keep it the same assuming players know what to do.

I wouldn't hold your breath. How long has the Drop Pod Model been out?

what is wrong with the drop pod that hasn't yet been FAQ'd? PM me the answers to that so we don't derail the thread. Thanks

Caffran9 wrote:what is wrong with the drop pod that hasn't yet been FAQ'd? PM me the answers to that so we don't derail the thread. Thanks

The doors.

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/243507.page#765608

Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0) Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?

Frazzled wrote:www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/243507.page#765608

Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0) Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?

Well since your math is bad I guess your point does not stand.

You must think of the distance to the 2nd line of models as a triangle, and to figure out that distance you use pythagoras theorem

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

A = distance to base of first model (in your example is 1.5)

B = Distance to second base, which if placed directly agacent would be .5 inches (no reason to measure from the far side as i'd put the middle of the base directly under the 1.5 inch zone, i made an error in just accepting your prior 1inch here)

C= distance to new model's base

C=1.58113883

so there are no problems there. Since you can use this triange in any direction from the model with the same result, being able to deploy one model @ 1.5 inches means that you are necessarily able to deploy at least 9 models within 2"

I pulled out the trusty old ruler. You're right. You could do two ranks (maximum) assuming 1in bases.

Houston I think we have a problem with, all skimmers buahaha if we apply this rule.

2 ranks in all directions (of which there are 8 directions that equal sized and shaped based models could go) gives a total of 9 models in that example.

How true this example is to actual models and their access points I'm not sure of. But, mathematically this proves the 1.5 inch standard flying base COULD allow the 2" disembark, where a 5" base could not.

Only half the directions-you can't put minis under the skimmer IIRC. But I'll grant you are getting close to a full complement of a normal squad and may reflect a full squad in real world application.

You can fit even more if you go with a bit of a low rider tilt back on the wave serpent. Should give you the extra half inch or so you need to deploy fully.

My opinion:

Even though there models are "technically" however high they are, whether its ground level, 3 inches 5 etc. It makes no sense to me that a skimmer wouldnt be able to lower itself to drop off or pick up squad members. Obviously a tank cant get to a high objective because it cant fly, but also as obvious is that a skimmer COULD get an objective close to the ground in the thought that any flying vehicle must have the ability to go up and down.

sorry if thats been said, made it through 4 or 5 pages of posts

SonofTerra wrote:My opinion:

Even though there models are "technically" however high they are, whether its ground level, 3 inches 5 etc. It makes no sense to me that a skimmer wouldnt be able to lower itself to drop off or pick up squad members. Obviously a tank cant get to a high objective because it cant fly, but also as obvious is that a skimmer COULD get an objective close to the ground in the thought that any flying vehicle must have the ability to go up and down.

sorry if thats been said, made it through 4 or 5 pages of posts

that is how most people play, how most tournaments are going to play it, and is almost assuredly what GW will say in the FAQ, if any.

It is not what RAW says, assuming a 3d system.