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.

I understand that skimmers can end their movement phase on impassible terrain as long as the vehicle can balance its base on the terrain but can it park on the rail of a building?

In my particular situation, I had a squad of assault marines on the top of a fortified building. I had just finished assaulting my opponent's snipers and at the conclusion of the assault, my assault marines occupied the whole roof of the building with no room for any more models. However, the edge of the building was surrounded by a small rail which my opponent argued he could move his Fire Prism onto. Yes, the Fire Prism was able to somehow balance on that tiny rail but the sight of it was just ridiculous. Perhaps, I could argue that he can't end his move within 1" of my models but what if my models weren't there and he decided to park on the rail for whatever reason. Would that be legal?

Well, aren't skimmers supposed to be flying off the ground? From a "real world" perspective, it seems like they could certainly end their move while floating above literally anything on the board (including things above which the base of the model would not fit). While it does seem a little hokey when you're looking at it on the table, I would say it probably makes sense as far as what the skimmers are supposed to be able to do.

If you can balance it, it can be so.

Hm I guess you're right. Albeit it looking weird, the skimmer was able to balance on it so it should be a legal move (as long as my models weren't there). Thanks for the reply!

So long as you can physically put it there, it's fine.

As you say, the 1" rule would apply, although remeber that in the case of skimmers you ignore the base and measure to the hull. So unless the models already on the roof are particularly tall, it's not likely to be a problem.

Having said that, if the building was indeed classed as a Building rather than a Ruin, there shouldn't be any way that your assault marines could have assaulted models in the building... and they shouldn't have been able to land on the building while it was occupied by enemy models.

What i don't get is why would he move his fire prisim so close to an assault marine squad...

insaniak wrote:So long as you can physically put it there, it's fine.

As you say, the 1" rule would apply, although remeber that in the case of skimmers you ignore the base and measure to the hull. So unless the models already on the roof are particularly tall, it's not likely to be a problem.

Having said that, if the building was indeed classed as a Building rather than a Ruin, there shouldn't be any way that your assault marines could have assaulted models in the building... and they shouldn't have been able to land on the building while it was occupied by enemy models.

You're right! If it's an occupied building, enemy units can't take the roof.

However, for bonus fun, if it was a ruin, then skimmers can't land on the upper floors of it at all, regardless of their capacity to balance.

So either way this was against the rules for the eldar player. With the potential exception of the building being neither ruin nor building, but just a building-shaped chunk of area terrain.

This is why GW suck so much.... A flying tank cant stop over terrain because its terrain.... Hang on didn't you just tell me this was a flying tank?

Well if you can make your $50 tank balance so it wont fall we'll let you do it ??? Ahhh It fell and broke.... Ok go buy another one....

Our Local group allow Flying anything to hover where it likes.... Over rivers, Volcanoes, Ruins whatever..... After all it has engines and flys who cares whats under it!

You could have at least made him roll a dangerous terrain test.... but again I think this is stupid as the tank just flys higher than the terrain.... Its the 41st millenium! My car tells me if Im close to objects and its a 2011... not a 41011.

theironjef wrote:However, for bonus fun, if it was a ruin, then skimmers can't land on the upper floors of it at all, regardless of their capacity to balance.

Would you please reference this in the rulebook. I can't find it on page 71.

Some see it in the rules for Ruins, which list the units that can move about on the upper floors.

Personally I do not, and RAP neither does the entire uk gaming community, that I can tell.

Actually you don't have to be able to set it up there from a pure RAW perspective. Wobbly Model Syndrome and all that. If it is impassible then it can land, if it is dangerous it can land (albeit with a test). Now it can't land on an occupied building, or within 1" of an enemy or on top of a friendly but otherwise I can't think of how that isn't legal.

Akroma06 wrote:Actually you don't have to be able to set it up there from a pure RAW perspective. Wobbly Model Syndrome and all that. If it is impassible then it can land, if it is dangerous it can land (albeit with a test). Now it can't land on an occupied building, or within 1" of an enemy or on top of a friendly but otherwise I can't think of how that isn't legal.

The "question" about skimmers on the top floor of a ruin is that ruins are not impassible, skimmers are just not allowed to move above the ground floor.
The two sides are:
a) not allowed means impassable, so skimmers can land on the upper floors.
b) Ruins are not impassable, just restricted - so skimmers cannot land on the upper floors.

It's pretty clear. Impassable terrain isn't defined as "stuff you aren't allowed to go on/in." It's "stuff you and your opponent agreed is impassable." Because of that, things that you can't go to for other reasons don't become impassable terrain. They just become terrain you can't go into.

As for a citation, you aren't looking at skimmer stuff on page 71, you're looking at Ruin definitions on page 83. Here's the quote.

Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper levels of ruins. Accordingly, only infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes, monstrous creatures, and walkers can physically be placed there. Other units may only move on the ground level of ruins.

It's pretty explicit, and what's noteworthy is that it doesn't say "Units other than these listed treat the upper levels of ruins as impassable terrain." It just says they can't go up there, then gives a place where they can go instead. Skimmers have their own special rule that says they can move over all terrain (move over, not land in), without suffering penalties, but if they land in difficult or dangerous terrain they have to take a test. The book adds that they CAN land in Impassable Terrain, provided they make that same test. But none of those permissions interact with the ruins rules.

I play Dark Eldar. I hate this rule. But it's in the book and at my store at least it's well known and enforced.

theironjef wrote:It's pretty clear. Impassable terrain isn't defined as "stuff you aren't allowed to go on/in." It's "stuff you and your opponent agreed is impassable." Because of that, things that you can't go to for other reasons don't become impassable terrain. They just become terrain you can't go into.

As for a citation, you aren't looking at skimmer stuff on page 71, you're looking at Ruin definitions on page 83. Here's the quote.

Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper levels of ruins. Accordingly, only infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes, monstrous creatures, and walkers can physically be placed there. Other units may only move on the ground level of ruins.

It's pretty explicit, and what's noteworthy is that it doesn't say "Units other than these listed treat the upper levels of ruins as impassable terrain." It just says they can't go up there, then gives a place where they can go instead. Skimmers have their own special rule that says they can move over all terrain (move over, not land in), without suffering penalties, but if they land in difficult or dangerous terrain they have to take a test. The book adds that they CAN land in Impassable Terrain, provided they make that same test. But none of those permissions interact with the ruins rules.

I play Dark Eldar. I hate this rule. But it's in the book and at my store at least it's well known and enforced.

So terrain you're not allowed to move in is not impassable? But the rules say (page 13) that Impassable Terrain cannot be moved across or into. Since Ruins say I cannot move across or into the top levels of a ruin, that is impassable terrain by definition.

That's extrapolating, you can't do that with 40k rules. Similarly, your model can't fly off the board and onto your chair, that doesn't make the chair Impassable Terrain, it just makes it a place your model can't go.

If the terrain isn't defined as Impassable, it's not impassable. Hell, ruins specifically aren't impassable, because there's all kinds of other models that can easily go up there.

The top level of ruins prevents skimmers from hanging out up there but does not define it as impassable. Impassable has its own definition, but needs to be specifically defined as such.

-cgmckenzie

theironjef wrote:That's extrapolating, you can't do that with 40k rules. Similarly, your model can't fly off the board and onto your chair, that doesn't make the chair Impassable Terrain, it just makes it a place your model can't go.

No, theres rules that cover that - you can't leave the board.
And it's not extrapolating. I have a rule saying I am not allowed to move there (ruins and skimmers). Impassable terrain is defined as being unable to move there. How is it not impassable terrain?

If the terrain isn't defined as Impassable, it's not impassable. Hell, ruins specifically aren't impassable, because there's all kinds of other models that can easily go up there.

But they are impassable to some models - at least the upper floors are. "It's not impassable, you just can't move through it." That sentence doesn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:The top level of ruins prevents skimmers from hanging out up there but does not define it as impassable. Impassable has its own definition, but needs to be specifically defined as such.

-cgmckenzie

Right - impassable is defined as not being able to move there. Skimmers are not able to move on the upper floors of a ruin. The upper floors of a ruin are impassable to skimmers.

It's because Impassible Terrain isn't a description or a definition, it's a game term. Similarly, Monstrous Creatures are any creature that comes with that descriptor, not just any model that happens to look sort of monstery. You can't say that stuff looks looking like or operating like the effects of a specific game term grants that game term, because the game will fall apart.

"It's not impassable, you just can't move through it." That sentence doesn't work.

Unfortunately it does. In this case ruins are defined not as impassable, but merely as a place that skimmers can't go. This doesn't spontaneously generate the impassable terrain rule, because there's no rule that says it does. Trust me, I don't like it either, and you're welcome to play it however you like, etc. But the rules are against you.

No, theres rules that cover that - you can't leave the board.
And it's not extrapolating. I have a rule saying I am not allowed to move there (ruins and skimmers). Impassable terrain is defined as being unable to move there. How is it not impassable terrain?

In the same way that there's a clear rule that says you can't leave the board, the ruin rule says you can't go on the upper floors with a skimmer. They are both places a skimmer cannot go that isn't impassable. They both have clearly defined rules on the subject.

Not being able to go somewhere is not the only requirement of impassable terrain; it actually has to be impassable terrain. ie having been sorted as impassable by the players/TO before the match starts. The upper floors of ruins are not impassable, they are simply places that skimmers cannot go.

It sounds like we are splitting hairs, but it is important in game terms to recognize the difference between things that are like x and things that are x.

-cgmckenzie

rigeld2 wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Actually you don't have to be able to set it up there from a pure RAW perspective. Wobbly Model Syndrome and all that. If it is impassible then it can land, if it is dangerous it can land (albeit with a test). Now it can't land on an occupied building, or within 1" of an enemy or on top of a friendly but otherwise I can't think of how that isn't legal.

The "question" about skimmers on the top floor of a ruin is that ruins are not impassible, skimmers are just not allowed to move above the ground floor.
The two sides are:
a) not allowed means impassable, so skimmers can land on the upper floors.
b) Ruins are not impassable, just restricted - so skimmers cannot land on the upper floors.

Yes I get that and I'm in group B on that (my DE HATE THAT), but he said a building and in 40 what everyone is going on about now is a ruin, not a building. On a building, that I assumed that they agreed upon was impassable you can land on. If its to small to safely leave there then its WMS and you set it to the side and both of you know where it is in reality.

Again ruin, can't be there. Not a ruin an intact IMPASSABLE building it can land there.

I believe that the rules for a skimmer on impassable terrain dictates that you must be able to place the model there, so WMS wouldn't apply. My BGB isn't handy, though, so I could very well be spouting nonsense.

-cgmckenzie

Yeah mines not at hand either, but you may be right that may be an exception. Although if it's up on a rail very little things would block it except for it falling off of the "rail" which would be WMS. If it can't fit beacuse of say two tall buildings then obviously no you can't fit. Same reason why a terminator can't fit in a 25mm gap.

Just got off the phone with David & Daniel at GW. Skimmers can't go to the upper floors of ruins. Call 'em yourself if you like.

As a rule of thumb, only official FAQs and printed rules provide true answers, calling, emailing, or writing to GW about a rule query is not an accepted way of determining what is or is not allowed, since the answers tend to vary greatly depending on who you talk to, and can range from correct to very, very wrong.

You have to remember that who you are calling can't just pop up to ask the guys who made the rule, neither can you talk to the rule-maker personally, nor can you provide anything but spoken permission from anyone you talk to.

"The guy at GW said it was right." Seems fine until you realise that they probably just read the rule and made a gut call, he might even dislike the army you're playing against if you mentioned it, and rule against them.

Nothing but the RBs, Codices/Army Books, and official GW FAQs can provide trustworthy rulings on issues like these.

theironjef wrote:Just got off the phone with David & Daniel at GW. Skimmers can't go to the upper floors of ruins. Call 'em yourself if you like.

Please note the tenets of YMDC - phone calls to GW mean less than nothing.

It's because Impassible Terrain isn't a description or a definition, it's a game term. Similarly, Monstrous Creatures are any creature that comes with that descriptor, not just any model that happens to look sort of monstery. You can't say that stuff looks looking like or operating like the effects of a specific game term grants that game term, because the game will fall apart.

Really - it's not a description or definition? Could explain the sentence on page 13 then?

You're strawmanning the argument. I'm not saying "That lava looks impassable, therefore it is." I'm saying that something defined by the rules (ruins to skimmers) meets the definition of another rule (impassable terrain) therefore they're the same.

Game terms without definition mean nothing, unless you look to the English language. Fortunately, impassable terrain is defined in the rulebook as, and I quote:

Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into

Can a skimmer move into the top floor of a ruin?

Skimmers can land on Impassable Terrain but not the upper floors of a Ruin. Impassable Terrain and Ruins are agreed upon by both players before the match starts. You can't move Infantry into Ruin and then claim it is Impassable Terrain for a Skimmer, because it is not. You agreed that it is a Ruin. I don't capitalize these words for fun or emphasis. These are proper nouns defined in gaming terms by GW and the players themselves.

Hah, that's fair about GW. They seemed pretty useless over the phone. The first one immediately started saying "anywhere you can balance the.... hang on, that doesn't work".

Anyway, it still doesn't work. I find it hilarious that one rule in a rulebook straight up trumps another one, but the rundown is that skimmers can move across and through impassable terrain, and even end their turn there. Then the ruin rule says they can't go up into the upper floor of a ruin. Now, if they had said "the upper floors of ruins are impassable terrain to the following unit types" that'd be different, but they didn't. They had a framework in place by which to allow skimmers up into tiered ruins. Hell, they implicitly pass by allowing them to, TWICE.

First time they could have let skimmers land in ruins: When they listed the unit types. Knowing that skimmers can land in impassable terrain or weird spots, they should have simply added them to this list of unit types that can traverse the upper floor of ruins. But they did not.

Second time they could have let skimmer land in ruins: When they defined ruins not as impassable terrain, but merely as terrain that certain units can't go in. They already had a rule for terrain that units can't go in. They already had established that skimmers could go in that terrain anyway. They did not use the rule.

It's insane to look at the ruin paragraph, which contains not one but two dictums stating that skimmers can't land in the upper floors of ruins and say "Well, they probably meant that yes they can."

theironjef wrote:It's insane to look at the ruin paragraph, which contains not one but two dictums stating that skimmers can't land in the upper floors of ruins and say "Well, they probably meant that yes they can."

Refer to the DoG with a PSA discussion. There's a BUNCH of places they could have explicitly allowed PSAs. There's still about a dozen people who are saying I'm 100% wrong on denying a PSA in DoG.

I don't see how you can defend terrain that you cannot move through as not being impassable terrain.

Well you're skipping a relevant question. If they are allowed in ruins, why aren't they on that list of units that are allowed in ruins?

It doesn't really matter why. I'm sorry but it doesn't. Skimmer's aren't on the list that are allowed in Impassable terrain therefore they cannot go there.

Recall a ruin is a type of terrain (difficult). Other buildings can be labeled intact (Impassable). The words in the parenthesis are waht matters. A ruin is not Impassable terrain it is difficult terrain. A skimmer can land on top of impassable terrain, and nowhere do you have permission to land on top of a ruin.