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.

As I've read the rules for the fire raptor, I am wondering if it becomes a scoring unit if he elects to hover. The rules say he's not a scoring you not if it is a "zooming flyer". As read this, I am inclined to think the a Fire Raptor is a scoring unit if it is hovering that turn. Am I right about this, or missing a rule somewhere?

Thanks!

If you are hovering then you aren't zooming

Fliers can claim and hold objectives when hovering

That's what I figured, but wanted to double check before someone accused me of pulling some sneaky grot shenanigans. Thanks gents!

Just remember that you have to measure to the hill of the flyer, not the base (nor the air under the hull), so there aren't many objectives it could feasibly reach.

Isn't it treated as a Fast Skimmer when hovering?

If so, why would you measure to the hull - isn't the base sufficient for based vehicles? (I don't have my book with me so an answer of "No." is perfectly valid)

You ignore the base of a skimmer except for very specific uses. I do not believe measuring between the vehicle and an objective Id one of those uses.

For Skimmers you ignore the base except when firing weapons and Fire Points which work as normal and being charged or rammed where models can touch either (or else you could never charge a Hovering Flyer due to it's model position)

Still, wings are counted as part of the hull for vehicles so for some, such as the Vendetta, it would be quite easy to score objectives

 Cheexsta wrote:
Just remember that you have to measure to the hill of the flyer, not the base (nor the air under the hull), so there aren't many objectives it could feasibly reach.

According to the 'Controlling Objective Markers' rules. A Fliers, is a scoring unit , when not Zooming.

As long as it is hovering within 3" of the objective , it count as claiming it.

The Objective Marker represents "a point on the battlefield of particular importance to one or both armies"
So you are measuring 3" to that point, not to the object, such as a dice, poker chip, etc , that you are using to represent that point.

so the lesson is to model the flyer with one wing angled down....

RAW in this case is silly, and by RAW you certainly can model the flyers with one wing close to the ground (without altering the model at all, so not even MFA)


HIWIPI and how most people play it is if the flyers base is within 3" you can cap it

 easysauce wrote:
so the lesson is to model the flyer with one wing angled down....

RAW in this case is silly, and by RAW you certainly can model the flyers with one wing close to the ground (without altering the model at all, so not even MFA)


HIWIPI and how most people play it is if the flyers base is within 3" you can cap it

I agree.

There is no rule stating that you have to measure down from the hull of the Flier, to the Objective Marker, that I can find.

The size of most Fliers are greater than or equal to their base size anyway. As long as the base is within 3", it's holding the Objective.

 BuddhaTattoo wrote:
There is no rule stating that you have to measure down from the hull of the Flier, to the Objective Marker, that I can find.

Page 72, Vehicles & Measuring Distances.

 BuddhaTattoo wrote:
There is no rule stating that you have to measure down from the hull of the Flier, to the Objective Marker, that I can find.

From 'Flyers and Measuring':

However distances are still measured to and from the Flyer's hull, with the exception of the vehicle's weapons and Fire Points, which all work as normal.

Do you have where it lists an alternate way to measure from a vehicle to an objective marker?

I stand corrected. I was only looking at the rules regarding Objectives.

I would argue however, that 3" distance to the objective is a lateral distance, and not a vertical one.

 BuddhaTattoo wrote:
I would argue however, that 3" distance to the objective is a lateral distance, and not a vertical one.

Based on what? You measure to the hull, regardless of whether that means your measurement is horizontal, vertical or somewhere in between.

“You control an Objective Marker if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units (see below), and no models from enemy scoring units, within 3" of it. As different Objective Markers vary in shape and size, it is important to agree at the beginning of the game exactly from where this distance will be measured. Any unit that is in a building is considered to be within 3" of any Objective Markers that are on or within 3" of the building."

Given the stated building scenario; there is no specification of being on the same level, or on vertical distance, above or below the objective marker.

There are no rules or specification on the height of the Objective markers. The Objective Marker represents "a point on the battlefield of particular importance to one or both armies" Objectives are arbitrary points on the board, represented by a marker. If your Flier is hovering on top of that point, it is controlling that point, regardless of the fliers height off of the board.

It's only controlling that point if its within 3" of it. It may be able to physically block access to that point, but if you're not in range, you're not controlling it.

This is a three dimensional game. If I can't extend my tape measure 3" from the physical hull to touch the physical objective marker, they're not close enough.

When playing a flyer/hover capable unit in my list, I try to make sure there's at least one objective on a hill....

all fliers have a point on their hull within 3" of the ground, or can be legally modelled to do this.


this whole discussion is a bit moot in that by RAW yes you have to measure from the hull, and by raw you can model your flyer to have hull within 3" of the ground

 easysauce wrote:
all fliers have a point on their hull within 3" of the ground, or can be legally modelled to do this.


this whole discussion is a bit moot in that by RAW yes you have to measure from the hull, and by raw you can model your flyer to have hull within 3" of the ground

Im quite sure the Fireraptor is no where close to 3" from the ground so please enlighten me.

angle the model, banking either forward or to the side, and the nose or a wing will be within 3" of the ground.

perfectly legal by RAW,

I don't get how you think altering the way the standard model is assembled, in this case changing the angle the hull attaches to the base, to gain the advantage of being closet to the ground is somehow not modeling for advantage.

 easysauce wrote:
angle the model, banking either forward or to the side, and the nose or a wing will be within 3" of the ground.

perfectly legal by RAW,

Legal by RaW because it doesn't say you can't? Or do you have a specific rule telling you that you can convert a model to gain in game advantage that you wouldn't normally otherwise have?

Seems like modelling for advantage shenanigans. A stock model, put together using a stock flying base will not be able to be within 3" of the ground.

Hence: Put an objective on a hill!

 Kriswall wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
angle the model, banking either forward or to the side, and the nose or a wing will be within 3" of the ground.

perfectly legal by RAW,

Legal by RaW because it doesn't say you can't? Or do you have a specific rule telling you that you can convert a model to gain in game advantage that you wouldn't normally otherwise have?

Seems like modelling for advantage shenanigans. A stock model, put together using a stock flying base will not be able to be within 3" of the ground.

Most GW flying vehicle are designed to be modeled in a bank turn. We just don't normally assemble like that and instead have them level. The Heldrake was designed so strongly this way you have to mod it so it isn't tilted.

 Nilok wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
angle the model, banking either forward or to the side, and the nose or a wing will be within 3" of the ground.

perfectly legal by RAW,

Legal by RaW because it doesn't say you can't? Or do you have a specific rule telling you that you can convert a model to gain in game advantage that you wouldn't normally otherwise have?

Seems like modelling for advantage shenanigans. A stock model, put together using a stock flying base will not be able to be within 3" of the ground.

Most GW flying vehicle are designed to be modeled in a bank turn. We just don't normally assemble like that and instead have them level. The Heldrake was designed so strongly this way you have to mod it so it isn't tilted.

The heldrake is the only one designed to be banked at all

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't get how you think altering the way the standard model is assembled, in this case changing the angle the hull attaches to the base, to gain the advantage of being closet to the ground is somehow not modeling for advantage.

there is no RAW against putting a flyer on an angle, I can do this without modifying the models components at all, even if there were a rule against modding your models. It is most certainly not altering how the standard model is assembled in any way, shape or form, the model is 100% at the exact same dimensions it started with out of the box.

You can put a space marine in a dynamic pose, that opens him up to more hits from blast weapons, or you can model him so none of his arms are out past his base, making him harder to hit with blast.

neither is MFA, and there is no rule against either, same as with the flyer. You are allowed to model things with dynamic poses, arms out past their bases, capes flying willy nilly, and yes, even a banking or full forward flyer depicting dynamic flight.



What you are saying, without any rules backing, is that every single model has only one legal assembly pose by RAW, and every model of that type must be assembled exactly as that one, singular, legal by RAW pose.

So please quote the rule being broken, or admit you are bringing a non RAW related argument up.


Changing the angle at which a model attaches to its base, in no way alters how the standard model is assembled, you can get the angle using all the stock peices as they come out of the box with no modifications.

if you claim the angle of a model is at is MFA, then please quote me the rules that stipulate this.

if you are going to claim something breaks RAW, be prepared to quote a rule that is broken. As it is, you cannot quote one, because there isnt one.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

The heldrake is the only one designed to be banked at all

they are all designed the same way,


you are claiming that every model is designed with a certain pose in mind, which has no RAW backing, makes zero sense, and leads to things like every space marine having to share the same pose to be "legal" in made up rules about MFA that dont actually exist.

flyers can be assembled, as they were designed, to be banking, every single model is *designed* with multiple poses in mind.

if the model is assembled, to the original dimensions, and on the base/stand its supplied with, its not MFA because there is no modelling involved, its just choosing one of the available *poses*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
angle the model, banking either forward or to the side, and the nose or a wing will be within 3" of the ground.

perfectly legal by RAW,

Legal by RaW because it doesn't say you can't? Or do you have a specific rule telling you that you can convert a model to gain in game advantage that you wouldn't normally otherwise have?

Seems like modelling for advantage shenanigans. A stock model, put together using a stock flying base will not be able to be within 3" of the ground.

thats where you are wrong, the stock model, on stock base/stand, can very much come withing 3" of the ground.

please quote the rule saying every model, assembled using all the original components, in original size, has to by RAW be in the *pose* you are unilaterally declaring as the official legal pose by RAW

 easysauce wrote:

What you are saying, without any rules backing, is that every single model has only one legal assembly pose by RAW, and every model of that type must be assembled exactly as that one, singular, legal by RAW pose.

No one is saying that. Several models can be assembled correctly (following their instructions) in different ways to get a different or dynamic pose but not ALL models. In this case you have specifically stated you want to change how the hull attaches to the base. Bad news is that out of the 4 or 5 different flyer models I have assembled there is no way to attach the hull the base as you've descried that would not require you to alter the base or the hull in some fashion.

The GW flying base has a cross shaped stem and a corresponding cross shaped slot on the hull. With out altering anything you can sometimes put the stem into the slot in one of two ways and at most this might change how far the hull leans forward.

And no, this is not a RAW discussion because, guess what, there are no rules on model assembly. The game just assumes you are using models that where assembled according to their instructions.
What I'm saying is altering the way the standard model is assembled in order to gain an advantage as you have described, is MFA.

thats fine if you want to have a non RAW related rules discussion.

If you dont think its fair to have a dynamic pose, you are allowed to play that way, have fun!

some people consider trying to make a scoring unit, not be able to score as is intended, as lawyering for advantage. BUt this is also without rules backing as is MFA, though many play this way.

which is why most people play by RAW (or community FAQ's) because your MFA argument is just as applicable as my LFA argument on the table top.

both sides can call the other side a jerk all day, and resolve nothing, but the fact remains,

Putting that cross slot onto the peg at a 25 degree angle doesnt break any rules, no more then putting a space marine on his base at an angle not flush between his feet and the base.

after all, it doesnt say which space marine arms *have* to be at X or Y angle, and which ones we are free to connect to the joint at the angle we see fit to do so.

How you differentiate between the joint we are allowed to choose the angle for, and ones we cannot is completely arbitrary.

if you are going to compain about flyers being MFA, be prepared to complaing about anyone who models all their marine/guard/gaunts with no limbs or anything sticking out past the base.