Skimmers and Impassable Terrain

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.

**Cayar**

Hey Dakka,

I was playing one of my friends recently (my Eldar vs. his Orks) and I may have pulled some shenanigans.

1. I posted my Fire Prism on a piece of tall impassable terrain with good sight lines.
2. I failed the dangerous terrain check, leaving the Prism immobilized.
3. I proceed to lay waste to my friend's hordes; he tries to counter by assaulting with his Killa Kans.
4. He was able to get his Kans under the hull of my Prism, but they would not touch, such was the height of my Prism.

5. The question was this: can you assault a skimmer that you are under but can't reach?
(There was no ladder, and the Prism would have been out of reach or the Kans' buzzsaws even if the models were tilted for max height.)

Also, when a skimmer is immobilized, must you remove the flying base if possible? If so, the Kans could have maybe touched the Prism.

PS: First topic started! Yay.

**Happyjew**

If a skimmer is immobilized, you are required to remove the base if possible (pg 71). Additionally, models need to get in contact with either the hull or the base, so depending on the terrain, they may have been able to assault even if the base was glued on. 2 questions, did your FP start on the Impassable terrain? If so, why did you move it???

**sudojoe**

I think that it should not be possible to engage in combat as the skimmer is technically on top of impassible and fits a similar problem with infantry trying to assault into b2b against models on the 2nd floor of a building.

I have to roll difficult terrain to go up the terrain to reach b2b so if I cannot get up there I can be under them and not count as combat since I am actually like an inch in height away.

In this case, you cannot make it up the impassible since it is taller than you so you cannot assault the prism with the Kans.

I cam make an another analogy as well, say I model my space marine with a 5 inch long super power sword, just because I can touch your model with my sword does not mean I can fight you cause my base is still 5 inches back.

**BarBoBot**

isnt the flying base of a skimmer also allowed to be assualted, and not just the hull?

If removing the base would have brought it within range of assault, then the base itsself was within range of assault the whole time.

**calypso2ts**

How exactly did you put the skimmer on impassible terrain?

It is impassible, that does not mean it is impassible to everything except skimmers. You need to finish your move in a valid location, in the same way a skimmer cannot end its move in other impassible terrain...like enemy models?

Unless everything except the top where it landed was impassible terrain of course?

**time wizard**

Skimmers by rule can end their move in impassable terrain as long as they can be placed there. They take a damgerous terrain test, which the OP did.

In order to assault the skimmer, you have to get into base contact with it, which would be impossible for anything other than jump infantry or jetbikes, the only other 2 unit types that can end their move in impassable terrain.

**SlaveToDorkness**

How exactly did you put the skimmer on impassible terrain?

It is impassible, that does not mean it is impassible to everything except skimmers. You need to finish your move in a valid location, in the same way a skimmer cannot end its move in other impassible terrain...like enemy models?

BRB pg 71, fifth paragraph, last sentence.

**calypso2ts**

Gotcha, I was under the impression impassible meant impassible for any model. Thank you for the clarification.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Yes, GW needs to look up the definitions of "impassible" and "majority".

**Thaylen**

Whats really gonna bake your noodle later is that if you are in impassible terrain, and some jump pack guys land next to you, can they actually assault you since they move like infantry in the assault phase (ie. are not allowed to go through impassable terrain).

**Lunchmonkey**

Impassable, not impossible.

**time wizard**

Thaylen wrote:Whats really gonna bake your noodle later is that if you are in impassible terrain, and some jump pack guys land next to you, can they actually assault you since they move like infantry in the assault phase (ie. are not allowed to go through impassable terrain).

Jump infantry rules say that they assault 6" just like normal infantry, not that they move like normal infantry.

Even though assault rules say in general that the assault move goes around friendly models, enemy models not being assaulted and impassable terrain, the first paragraph under 'Moving Assaulting Models' says the assaulting models "...make their assault move following the same rules as in the Movement phase."

And in the Movement phase, jump infantry and jetbikes may, by rule, move into and end their move on top of impassable terrain.

**nosferatu1001**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yes, GW needs to look up the definitions of "impassible" and "majority".

Except they dont (for majority), as UK English has a different meaning of the word than your version of the language...

**SlaveToDorkness**

huh, that's not what this site says...

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Majority

Perhaps its commonly used due to ignorance? Like people I have heard saying "Be more pacific." when meaning specific.

**Scott-S6**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:huh, that's not what this site says...

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Majority

Perhaps its commonly used due to ignorance? Like people I have heard saying "Be more pacific." when meaning specific.

That definition is from the BBC....

Try the Oxford dictionary:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/majority?q=majority

**SlaveToDorkness**

Um....yes... and? Both mean "more than half" which is not GWs definition.

**insaniak**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Um....yes... and? Both mean "more than half" which is not GWs definition.

Nope. The British meaning, as per that link, is 'the greater number', not 'more than half'. Meaning the group that is bigger than any other group... which is how it is applied in GW's rules.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Actually, Insaniak it is applied as half or more in GW rules. Specifically applying to cover. Specifically pg 22 right column.

**insaniak**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Actually, Insaniak it is applied as half or more in GW rules. Specifically applying to cover. Specifically pg 22 right column.

When there are only two groups (in this case 'in cover' and 'not in cover') the majority will always be more than half of the unit. In situations with more than 2 groups (such as determining Majority Toughness for particularly complex units) it won't always be more than half... you just go for the group that is larger than the others.

**Chrysis**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Actually, Insaniak it is applied as half or more in GW rules. Specifically applying to cover. Specifically pg 22 right column.

When the options are binary (in cover vs. not in cover, clear shot vs. no clear shot) then majority and "more than half" are going to be synonymous.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Great reading comp guys...please read pg 22 right column first two paragraphs

. GW says that a majority of models must be in cover, then go on to say that it's half or more in cover.

**insaniak**

Yes, in that one specific example they use 'majority' loosely, and then go on to explain that this means half or more, rather than an actual majority.

In most other situations where the rules call for you to determine a majority, they are referring to the actual majority.

**Scott-S6**

Example: Majority toughness.

3x T3
2xT4
2xT5

None are the majority according to the US definition.
T3 is the majority according to the UK definition.

The US definition fails to work for 40K purposes anytime there are more than two different values mixed within the unit.

**SlaveToDorkness**

My point is that neither definition includes half of the group i na two option case. Which is GWs usage of it.

Ah... a joke explained isn't a joke at all....

**Scott-S6**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:My point is that neither definition includes half of the group i na two option case. Which is GWs usage of it.

Except that it's not - they use the UK usage of it.

The only example where it's half or more is cover saves which is a yes/no situation in which case both meanings get the same result.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Yes, the WRONG one.

**ceramice**

Shenanigans! thats just naughty play! but funny as hell.