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.

You're making this far more complicated than it has to be.

Per the BRB, you always ignore the skimmer base except for assaulting. Disembarking is FAQ'd to measure to the base also for vendettas/valkyries.

If you always ignore the skimmer base but only count area terrain as the stuff touching the tabletop, skimmers will never be in terrain. But in the BRB, it says multiple times that a skimmer stopping in terrain takes a terrain test.

So, it leads me to the conclusion that when skimmers stop above area terrain, they are in area terrain.

Valk/vendettas have no special rules that excuse them from standard skimmer practices in regards to terrain. If they are above the terrain, they are in the terrain. Simple, easy, straight forward.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Per the BRB, you always ignore the skimmer base except for assaulting.

It says the base is "effectively ignored" in the section about measuring to the vehicle. It doesn't say that it's always ignored for all purposes; it just says that, when measuring, you measure to other things.

If you always ignore the skimmer base but only count area terrain as the stuff touching the tabletop, skimmers will never be in terrain. But in the BRB, it says multiple times that a skimmer stopping in terrain takes a terrain test.

I've acknowledged this.

So, it leads me to the conclusion that when skimmers stop above area terrain, they are in area terrain.

The exact same facts lead me to the conclusion that you can use the base to dermine whether something is in terrain.

The difference is that my interpretation limits the "effectively ignore the base" statement to the section in which it's located: measuring distances. Your interpretation involves making up qualities of area terrain that aren't in the book, and which have unwelcome repercussions.

Valk/vendettas have no special rules that excuse them from standard skimmer practices in regards to terrain. If they are above the terrain, they are in the terrain. Simple, easy, straight forward.

-cgmckenzie

Just as a 'by the way', I'm support my view for all skimmers, not just the Valk/Vend/Ravens. I would play them all the same.

If a tau hoverthing hangs over area terrain whilst its base is in the clear, the tank has to tank a terrain test even though it doesn't physically touch the terrain.

Checking to see if the skimmer in in terrain is a form of measuring. All measuring goes to the hull of the skimmer, not the base(except for assaults/disembarking valk).

BRB FAQ "Q: If a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain,
may any passengers disembark onto the impassable
terrain? (p71)
A: No, you may never disembark into impassable terrain.'

The term used is over impassable terrain, not touching or on.

Pg. 36 of the BRB says measuring to the base of vehicles cannot be used because most vehicles don't have bases.

Pg 71 says that all distances are measured to the hull with the except of guns, access points, and fire points. The base is effectively ignored except in the case of assaults.

If you are using the base to determine terrain, you aren't ignoring it.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:If a tau hoverthing hangs over area terrain whilst its base is in the clear, the tank has to tank a terrain test even though it doesn't physically touch the terrain.

Yes, this is a consequence of your interpretation.

Checking to see if the skimmer in in terrain is a form of measuring.

I disagree. Wether a skimmer is in terrain or not is binary. The base is on it or it isn't. The base doesn't have to be within 0" of something, it just has to be on it. You don't have to measure exactly how "in contact" something is.

All measuring goes to the hull of the skimmer, not the base(except for assaults/disembarking valk).

BRB FAQ "Q: If a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain,
may any passengers disembark onto the impassable
terrain? (p71)
A: No, you may never disembark into impassable terrain.'

The term used is over impassable terrain, not touching or on.

We're not talking about impassable terrain.

If we were, the BRB refers to it the same way, using the term "over." It also has a bit about wether or not you can actually place the model on top of the terrain. Since you can't take it off the base and rest a skimmer on it's hull unless it's immobile, that must mean that it's base is on the impassable terrain. This falls into the waiting arms of my interpretation rather nicely.

Pg. 36 of the BRB says measuring to the base of vehicles cannot be used because most vehicles don't have bases.

Pg 71 says that all distances are measured to the hull with the except of guns, access points, and fire points. The base is effectively ignored except in the case of assaults.

If you are using the base to determine terrain, you aren't ignoring it.

-cgmckenzie

The base is effectively ignored for measurements, as in it's not usually used for them. That doesn't mean we don't pretend it doesn't exist.


Also, even if you can tear down my support for using the base, you're still left with no reasoning at all for your treatment of area terrain.

My point in including the tau hovertank example is that if you only count the base for terrain, you are having a gross misrepresentation of the model. Ask any tau player and they will say if the tank passes over terrain, the appropriate tests must be taken. Otherwise, there is a model on the board that is gigantic but only has a footprint the size of a soda can.

The extrapolation I said with terrain being vertically limitless is because GW hasn't said that the valk/vendetta is excused from what are otherwise the rules for skimmers.

If a vehicle has its hull in terrain, the vehicle is in terrain.
Skimmers are vehicles.
If a skimmer has its hull in terrain, it is in terrain.

There are some special cases where skimmers have their own rules but this isn't one of them.

Is checking for terrain an assault? If no, then you ignore the base for that purpose.

And effectively ignored doesn't mean usually ignore it, it means that you ignored it to the point where you pretended it wasn't there. If they wanted you to use the base for terrain, they would have said 'ignored except in assaults and in terrain checks.' They didn't, so you ignore the base.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:The extrapolation I said with terrain being vertically limitless is because GW hasn't said that the valk/vendetta is excused from what are otherwise the rules for skimmers.

But your extrapolation has to do with normal skimmers, as well. Without fabricating a third dimension for area terrain, regular skimmers should be able to hang over them as well. There is absolutely no justification for your treatment of area terrain this way.

If they wanted you to use the base for terrain, they would have said 'ignored except in assaults and in terrain checks.' They didn't, so you ignore the base.

-cgmckenzie

Except that you have to measure for assaults, to make sure you're in range. Terrain has no range.

Show me where it gives you any evidence in the rules about the base for skimmers being the only thing that matters? I keep pointing out rules and quotes from the BRB in my support, you don't. Provide some rule quotes to back up your argument.

-cgmckenzie

That's the thing, then, innit? There's no definition about how to be considered "in" terrain. What I'm providing is a definition that works with all present rules (yes, I know you disagree because of pg 71), and doesn't have crazy repercussions.

The closest thing to implying what is in terrain is on pg 22, when it talks about models with their *base* inside terrain as having cover. Since it cares about bases, I carry that on to include skimmer bases. In general, vehicles have to use their hulls in place of bases (pg 3 and others. It's established multiple times). However, since a) skimmers have bases and b) their hulls don't touch the table, it is logical to use the bases.

The only thing in the way of this being perfectly clear is your reference to pg 71 and the phrase "effectively ignored". However, I still think that it's talk of measuring to bases doesn't apply, since there's no measuring involved.

Also, on pg 71, it talks about landing on impassable terrain by being "on top" of it. The only way for a skimmer to be on top of something is for the base to be resting on it. You can't take the skimmer off of the base, so resting the hull on it doesn't make sense. Obviously the base counts for something.

I've shown you some of mine, now show me your support for your interpretation of area terrain having no bounds.

Page 71 and the rules for skimmers interacting with difficult and impassible terrain have only one simple conclusion:

If the body of the skimmer is above the area of the terrain, it is in the terrain. This is simple, clear, and totally consistent with the rules for every other vehicle.

Mannahnin wrote:Page 71 and the rules for skimmers interacting with difficult and impassible terrain have only one simple conclusion:

If the body of the skimmer is above the area of the terrain, it is in the terrain. This is simple, clear, and totally consistent with the rules for every other vehicle.

Your simple, clear, and consistent conclusion is magical area terrain.

My simple, clear, and consistent conclusion is to use the base.

You're hung up on a sentence about measuring.

I'm hung up on a lack of support for area terrain that reaches higher and lower than its representation. I actually find this inconsistent with things like TLOS and methods to determine cover.

Your solution has weird and unwelcome repercussions if carried to their conclusion when applied to other situations.

My solution doesn't have that problem.

I think you're right that there's one conclusion (I won't say it's simple, since it's so easy to take pg. 71 out of context), but obviously I disagree with what the conclusion actually is.

Of course p21 talks about bases; at this point in the rules ONLY infantry are consisdered.

You are then told to effectively ignore the skimmers base; you are trying to not ignore it, without any rules support for doing so.

Agree, you can't just randomly chose to not ignore the base unless the rules tell you so. otherwise you could chose to not ignore it whenever it is beneficial to you. For example if you want the explosion to hit the unit that assaulted it, while measuring from the hull when your guardsmen are standing underneath. This is obviously not the case.

Mind that a border is never a line on the ground. If a plane crosses the border from the US to Canada, it would be in Canada, and not in the US. If a skimmer's hull crosses the border of area terrain, it is in area terrain.

Wow, I am glad some other people stepped into this, I thought it was going to be the two of us circling and growling until the thread got locked(for excessive circling and growling).

We have a precedent of skimmers hulls counting for terrain, with the base just being there to put the tank at clothes-lining height for guardsmen from the Tau. A Tau player would be laughed off the board if he tried to make the argument that his hovermonstrosity is only in terrain if the base is in it.

And on pg 71, it says the base is ignored for anything but assaults. Assaults aren't part of movement but are included in that paragraph to show the one exception to the 'ignore the skimmer's base' rule.

Unless you can provide rules back up for your stance, it holds about as much water as a straw hat.

-cgmckenzie

pg 22 sets the basic rule that bases are what count. Vehicles break this rule because they don't have bases, and their hull touch the ground. Skimmers break that rule again because they do have bases, and their hulls float.

You don't measure to the base (and it's "effectively ignored") because the hull has a wider footprint. There's no point where you would measure to the vehicle and the base would be closer than the skimmer (at the time of the BRB, before the valk/vend/raven). The base being effectively ignored isn't a rule, it's a summary that reinforces to the player that measuring to the hull should be sufficient.

I don't usually like getting into quoting definitions because it means the discussion has reached a low point, but the word "effectively" has the implication of not being official. That is, it describes the result of something rather than describing the rule of something.

We have a base. We know where the skimmer touches the ground. Area terrain is defines by outlines on the ground. Combine the base with the outline and we know when the skimmer is in the area.

I've backed up my position with rules, logic, definitions, an idea of good game design, and even taken the effort to see if there are unwelcome consequences. Your only point against is is one sentence in an unrelated section that isn't even a rule, it's a description of a consequence.

Now, your turn for once. Give me rules support for magical area terrain that reaches the sky. How does shrubbery reach heights above the tallest ruin? Why would superman not be able to leap it in a single bound? The only support I've heard is that your interpretation doesn't work unless area terrain works that way. Doesn't it say something about your interpretation when you have to make up rules to support it?

Uh, could you provide a dictionary quote for effectively? I haven't found a single one(not even a translation) to support the implication you claim. Any synonyms I could find were along the lines of "completely", "absolutely", "for a fact", "definitely" or "ultimately". Not a single one of those implies uncertainty or "not being official".

Also note that movement rules never talk about bases in respect to any terrain tests, just about models.

Now, your turn for once. Give me rules support for magical area terrain that reaches the sky. How does shrubbery reach heights above the tallest ruin? Why would superman not be able to leap it in a single bound? The only support I've heard is that your interpretation doesn't work unless area terrain works that way. Doesn't it say something about your interpretation when you have to make up rules to support it?

The rules tell you that the boundaries of a terrain piece mark an area. An area does extend to the sky, defined by the boundaries, just as you don't leave a country by jumping into the air. If any part of a skimmer moves into that area, it moved into the terrain piece, and would have to test. That's the rules, "What would happen in reality?" has no bearing on how the game is played whatsoever.

If you'd force your definition vehicles that terrain is only occupying the actually modeled terrain, you wound never, ever have to take a terrain test for craters, rivers or any terrain without obstacles because it does not "magically reach the sky", or the vehicle right on top of it, for that matter.

Also your example is lacking. If you land on top of a ruin, you'd take one test, as the entire ruin is one piece of area terrain. If you'd land on top of a building, you'd take one test for landing on impassible terrain, as you don't test more than once for any move. Regular vehicles can move through two pieces of terrain, too.

The rules say that area terrain represents anything from craters and mud to things like forests and ruins. The rule for simplicity's sake is that anything in the terrain takes the test, even if it wouldn't interact with the ground normally. This is to represent jagged rocks sticking up, trees that get in the way, or anything else that can inhibit movement.

Since the rules for area terrain do not define an upper limit of the rocks/shrubs/trees/ruins, you must play as though they are infinitely high, otherwise you will get models exempt from the standard rules without a rule allowing it.

For example, the Tau hovertarget floating a couple feet off the ground would obviously interact with jagged rocks and shrubs by stopping in/passing through the terrain. It takes a check for stopping but is granted a free-be for the passing through because of skimmer rules. A valk/vendetta wouldn't interact, from the height it is modeled at, with shrubs but the rules don't make any exceptions to them for ignoring terrain simply because they are tall. It takes a check.

-cgmckenzie

This thread is simple. Agree to disagree. Your both right and your both wrong. The only way to solve this is to have GW Faq it. You all can fight over it day in and day out until your fingers fall off and your rulebooks fall apart from over use. Lock this thread up as it is going no where.

ef·fec·tive·ly/iˈfektəvlē/Adverb
1. In such a manner as to achieve a desired result: "resources used effectively".
2. Actually but not officially or explicitly: "they were effectively controlled by the people"

It's the first thing that came up on the goole search.

Anyway, TK is right. I haven't seen a new argument for a while, so this is basically Threefold Repetition.

Tenets of YMDC dont allow for dictionary definition; plus, if you ARE going to do so you shoudl at least cite your sources. OED is probably the best, as there are some key differences between English and US English.

Except ElCheezus wasn't the one who brought up the necessity of defining "effectively", Jidmah brought it up in his argument against ElCheezus's argument.

TK added the best thing yet to this thread though. Until it's FAQ'ed this could go back and forth forever.

No; originally ElCheezus stated that "effectively" is not official, based on its definition.

Yes because "effectively" and "is" do not have the same meaning. While definitions are discouraged in YMDC making the difference between words clear is not. Looking for the specific definitions to pick apart the wording was not started by ElCheezus.

But in this case it is "effectively" the same

You are told to "effectively" ignore the base, except for some specific exceptions

Being in area terrain is NOT one of those exceptions, so you still ignore the base.

OMG Nos, really? Ok this is my last post in this thread because I can actually take good advice when it's given.

Thanks Tomb King.

this is why I hate GW, discussions can actually get to this point because their rules suck.

I was explicitly asked for the definition I was using, so I provided it.

The term "effectively" talks about the effect of a something. It quite pointedly means that, while the rule doesn't say so, the result is that you don't have to measure to the base. It distincly isn't a rule, or it wouldn't even use that word. The sentence is yet another one of GWs statements that redundantly describes a rule instead of actually defining one.

You ignore the base except where they specifically tell you otherwise.

Your interpretation is in conflict with how Area Terrain works as an abstraction, and ignores the passage about skimmers ending their movement in terrain. A skimmer (except a Monolith) will never touch the area-defining flat ground-level piece of Area Terrain, but that area is considered, for abstract game purposes like cover and difficult terrain tests, to be full of "stuff" which sticks up and which models can use for cover and vehicles can smash into and get stuck on.

Mannahnin wrote:You ignore the base except where they specifically tell you otherwise.

Or: you measure to the hull in all cases except maybe assault if necessary. End of Rule. For explanation they add that, in effect (read: effectively), that implies you don't have to worry about the base (so, ya know, you can basically ignore it).

[quore]Your interpretation is in conflict with how Area Terrain works as an abstraction, and ignores the passage about skimmers ending their movement in terrain.

But then you are changing "in" to "on"

I think a lot of people disagree that the RAW points your way, and have shown why.

You are never told you can use the base of a skimmer FOR anything, so you cannot. Your interpretation makes up rules for skimmers.

Also, your cite-less definition, which i suspect is from a US English dictionary (and therefore NO USE in a discussion about a book written in actual English, never mind the tenets of this forum) can be ignored - you certain cannot hand peoples "confusion" about effectively on it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:But then you are changing "in" to "on"

I think a lot of people disagree that the RAW points your way, and have shown why.

You are never told you can use the base of a skimmer FOR anything, so you cannot. Your interpretation makes up rules for skimmers.

Also, your cite-less definition, which i suspect is from a US English dictionary (and therefore NO USE in a discussion about a book written in actual English, never mind the tenets of this forum) can be ignored - you certain cannot hand peoples "confusion" about effectively on it.

Re-read your post before posting. To all of the people playing this correctly just ignore the few who are different. Every major tournament in the U.S. has ruled that it is only in DT when the base is, so unless your playing where they ruled it differently than no need to argue against such a stubborn person.

What tournaments are these? Are they also the ones who ruled that skimmers can hang off the edge of the board?

Nosferatu is correct. Eldar players have been playing this way since, at the vary latest, the beginning of 5th. Arguements such as this have only come up recently due to the creation of the Valk and Stormraven.

People want to keep their cake and eat it as well 8/