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.

There was a game at the table next to me where a Tau player used the 'Fish of Fury" technique to deny a charge.  By placing two devilfish with an inch or two or part, the Tau player maintained that no one could move (charge in this case) between or under them, but being a skimmer, Firewarriors behind it could fire.  

This seemed a little odd (the move/charge bit) but I didn't think much of it until later since I wasn't playing or watching that game.

Premise One: "You may not move models within 1" of enemy models from any unit they are not charging." (BGB, p37)

Premise Two: "Firstly, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances use the closest edge of the base as your reference area point.  For models without a base (usually vehicles) use the model's hull/main body instead." (BGB, p6)

Conclusion: Since Devilfish are mounted on a flying base, assaulting units may move underneath a (non-immoblized or wrecked) skimmer as long as they do not move within 1" of the flying base.

There's my 5 minute idea.  Does anyone have any rules conclusions on this? It "feels" wrong, which means nothing in GW games, but I'm hoping someone here has a more thorough conclusion on this than me.

Your friend was right.  You can not assault under his transports, but he may shoot under them (you may shoot under them as well)

Think of it this way... The amount of downwards thrust required to keep skimmers aloft is enough to crush anybody that tries to go under one (Dont ask how you can shoot with projectile weapons then though, probably for simplicity)

-Legacy40k

Besides the fact that you'll have a hard time physically moving the models underneath another model? Nope. No other problems.

Basically the "flying base" = "base" as defined in the rulebook doesn't work very well with skimmers as most of them are much larger than the flying base.

So while you are technically right it is just one of those pandora's box issues that you really don't want to try to enforce. Because if you do the game will generally suffer from a whole array of other technical problems associated with trying to measure from that base.

If he models his guys so their height is more than one inch less than the lowest point of the devilfish (not sure if that's even possible), he could concievably move within one inch of the flying base. But then good luck using models eye view to shoot over anything.

If he models his guys so their height is more than one inch less than the lowest point of the devilfish

...it would make no difference whatsoever, as you measure from the model's base.

But a model may be based on a base larger than the one supplied, just not smaller right? So if you take the flying stand off and use the footprint of the vehicle as its base, then you have no problems right?

Uh, the 'footprint of the model' is not a base.

Tau skimmers have landing gear and can set down. Presumably a landed model should be taken off its flying base and set on the table. It would then operate like any normal vehicle model sititng still, i.e. distances would be measured from the edge of the model.

The discrepancy between the status of a flying-based skimmer and a landed skimmer is one of the practical arguments for treating all skimmers the same as other vehicles, for the purposes of distance measurement.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/24/2006 12:10 AM
Uh, the 'footprint of the model' is not a base.

Does this mean a rhino has no base?

Posted By Ghaz on 04/24/2006 12:10 AM
Uh, the 'footprint of the model' is not a base.

As it is a vehicle you can use the hull as the base for measuring distances.

Skimmers are still vehicles, it is a vehicle type.

Now, the horible wording of the rule book doesn't help anything. But the easiest and fairest way is to treat the model is as any other vehicle. There are entirely to many complications that come up when you use the "flying base" arguement.

If you insist on the "flying base" arguement, please talk to your opponent before hand, because 90% of gamers out there will not agree with you and it will save you and arguement half-way in the game.

Posted By snooggums on 04/24/2006 7:13 AM
As it is a vehicle you can use the hull as the base for measuring distances.

While what you are trying to say is correct, this actual statement is not.

You do not use the hull as the base. You instead simply do not take a base into consideration. When dealing with non-based vehicles, the hull becomes the point of reference for all measurements. This however, does not mean that "hull" = "base".

Its all semantics, but there is probably at least one instance where assuming that "hull" = "base" would cause a problem. I don't know what that instance would be, but the possibility of its existnace is there nonetheless.

Posted by snooggums on 04/24/2006 8:13 AM
As it is a vehicle you can use the hull as the base for measuring distances.

By the RAW, that is only true if the vehicle does not have a base.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/24/2006 9:20 AM

Posted by snooggums on 04/24/2006 8:13 AM
As it is a vehicle you can use the hull as the base for measuring distances.

By the RAW, that is only true if the vehicle does not have a base.

My apologies for not specifying an exception for walkers that have a larger base than hull, overlooked that since the thread is about skimmers only. 

You can always use a larger base, and can therefore use the hull on speeders and skimmers that have a larger hull than base. So for the purposes of this thread, you can use a skimmer hull instead of the base.

Once again, the hull of a vehicle is not a base.

Should a Tau skimmer be put on the tabletop on its legs if it is landed?

Posted By Ghaz on 04/24/2006 10:08 AM
Once again, the hull of a vehicle is not a base.

You could model your base to have the same footprint of the hull by changing it to a legal larger shape, or you and a reasonable opponent could just say that the base is the size of the hull without having to have a physical construct of it, since the end result is the same.

The discrepancy between the status of a flying-based skimmer and a landed skimmer is one of the practical arguments for treating all skimmers the same as other vehicles, for the purposes of distance measurement.

I don't know that there would be much argument if a skimmer was landed or sitting on the ground immobilized. 

What struck me as odd was the "have your cake and eat it too" idea that that the skimmer could move over enemies, and not blocking line of sight, but yet prevented movement by models on the ground.  No one tries to shoot through a rhino *and* charge through it's space. 

I'm as curious about "Rules as Played" by the tournie-folk as anything.  In a perfect world, *everything* would have a base, and we'd use that for measurement.  But I know better than to hold my breath when GW rules-sanity is involved.

I'm curious as to where in the Tau codex or the BBB it states that skimmers must be mounted on flying bases... None of my Devilfish are and I have always viewed it as a rather annoying thing to do as mine had a tendency to snap their flying bases when I tried it on the first few. :S  If I am in error on this topic please point me towards a rules reference so I can get some bases and little clear plastic sticks for my 9 skimmer army!

I'm curious as to where in the Tau codex or the BBB it states that skimmers must be mounted on flying bases

Rulebook, page 6.

Lots and lots of people do not use bases on their skimmers.

-Legacy40k

Ah, then it's no problem at all, since I am always allowed to use a larger base instead of a smaller one I will just continue doing what I have been doing and cutting out an outline of the Devilfish's hull in plasticard, flocking and painting it and calling it done! (As in I have the skimmer mounted directly to this "plasticard template" of the vehicle)

 Thanks insaniak!

 

Edited for clarity.

Posted By snooggums on 04/24/2006 12:57 PM

Posted By Ghaz on 04/24/2006 10:08 AM
Once again, the hull of a vehicle is not a base.

You could model your base to have the same footprint of the hull by changing it to a legal larger shape, or you and a reasonable opponent could just say that the base is the size of the hull without having to have a physical construct of it, since the end result is the same.

Then you would have a base.  However it does not change the fact that not having a base is NOT the same thing as having a base the same size as the model.

Posted By Legacy40k on 04/24/2006 7:46 PM
Lots and lots of people do not use bases on their skimmers.

-Legacy40k

Lots and lots of people believe in the Easter Bunny too.

Many people doing something incorrectly does not make it right.

 

The BGB tells you that you must use a base no smaller than the one provided with the model.

The hull is not a base.

Skimmers provided with a base must be mounted on a base no smaller than the one provided.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/24/2006 10:49 PM

Posted By snooggums on 04/24/2006 12:57 PM

Posted By Ghaz on 04/24/2006 10:08 AM
Once again, the hull of a vehicle is not a base.

You could model your base to have the same footprint of the hull by changing it to a legal larger shape, or you and a reasonable opponent could just say that the base is the size of the hull without having to have a physical construct of it, since the end result is the same.

Then you would have a base.  However it does not change the fact that not having a base is NOT the same thing as having a base the same size as the model.

It doesn't, hence why I added the "reasonable opponent" and "end result is the same". Of course I don't think a flying base is a base for game mechanics since it is smaller than the model's hull, or was intended to be for gaming purposes, so I don't always word it correctly the first time. But, should someone actually model their base to the shape of the largeer hull then it would be completely legal. As I said, a reasonable opponent would allow you to use the vehicle's actual hull as they know you end up with the same result anyway but get to keep a clear unintrusive base in the meantime.

Caveat: As a Tau player I have vested interests here

If you enforce this thought on the skimmer bases being effively the size of the model for purposes of charging past it, you will pretty much have to do it for everything to be fair.

1. You can't shoot the skimmer unless you can reach the base and vice versa. What a giant PITA. Speaking for myself, I'd rather not have to reach underneath the vehicle everytime I want to shoot at something. Of course, I (maybe incorrectly?) usually measure range to target from the weapon mounting (so that I can also show LOS). Do I now measure from the base, or do I have weapons that are magically floating outside my footprint? What about ordinance? If it scatters off a skimmer so that the center hole is off the flying base, should I have my opponent halve the strength?

2. You can't charge the skimmer unless you can reach the base. And all the problems that causes. Do you really want to run a close combat where your minis are underneath the skimmer's hull while they attack the skimmer's base? What happens if you kill the skimmer in close combat? Do the attackers magically teleport on top of the skimmer's hull after it falls to the table? There are no rules for it, so I imagine GW didn't even think of the possibility. Of course I shouldn't really apply logic to intent, as we've many instances of failed instances of such when applied to GW rulebooks XP. Still I'd like to hear your thoughts on how this would ever work (and I hope you have short models that don't have pointy swords raised in the air)

3. When skimmers set up in their deployment zone, do they need only have their base within the 12" zone? In fact, the only reason I see us using the hull of the vehicle now anyway (aside from the obvious aesthics and target recogni) would be to be able to find out where entry/exit points are on a devilfish, and when the vehicle is destroyed/immobilized...

4. When charging a unit on the other side of a skimmer (devilfish or otherwise), you will, almost guaranteed, end up with at least one model that must be underneath the hull of the skimmer, as you must charge the first model closest-to-closest. If the shortest path to the enemy is underneath the skimmer, and the enemy is up to the hull itself (or just very close to it), you will have at least that model completely underneath the skimmer's model. Ruleswise I guess this isn't an issue if you take this rules interpretation. Again I hope you have very short models.

As I don't have my books here, I can't really speak as to how well your arguement stands from a rules-lawyer perspective. Personally, though, I can see a large number of gameplay issues.

Nobody said it was a GOOD rule.

If you enforce this thought on the skimmer bases being effively the size of the model for purposes of charging past it, you will pretty much have to do it for everything to be fair.

I've got a Dark Eldar army with a ton of skimmers and bikes on flying bases, so I whole-heartedly agree that it opens a can of quirky worms.

In my completely unofficial opinion, I would use the hull of skimmers rather than the flying base.  Of course, I would also say that if a Skimmer does not block line of sight between two size 2 models (for shooting purposes), it does not prevent a charge move between the same two size 2 models.

An immobilized skimmer has it's base removed,  therefor, when a skimmer becomes immobilized (if it moved uner 6") it can no longer be targeted.

I bit's ordered a bunch of my vypers without bases, so they came without them, maybe I should use the tiny flying bases then?

what about determining side and front armour of a skimmer? 

If a weapon is aimed from a weapon mount, then a skimmer could be potentially positioned so that it could shoot, but it could not be shot back at.

If a skimmer is on a low flying base (as mine typically are), then it is impossible for a model to get under the skimmer (depending on it's size), and it is therefor impossible to assault one.

sometimes the practicle way of doing things is the best one, that's why we don't all use laser sights for LoS or lay a measuring tape down on the board and measure to a 1/64th of an inch.  I typically don't measure at all if my models are moving under 6" because it is practicle.

-Legacy40k

Hypothetically, would you also allow skimmers to be immune from infantry assault? It seems to me that if the infantry are free from interference from the skimmer, the reverse should also be true. Whilst GW says that assault on vehicles involves grenade lobbing, I could see troops being double-plus-unkeen on lobbing grenades up to a vehicle 3-4 metres above their heads, and letting the misses and shrapnel rain down on them.

All this is OT of course.