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.

1) Can the Tau crisis suits "Jump shoot jump", where they hop up onto a hill per say, shoot, then jump down to block LOS in the assualt phase?

2) Can the tau unload fire warriors, have fire warriors shoot under the transports, and then have the transports "land" to again block LOS??

Thanks!

PS Where can i find the FAQ's for armies?

1.) As long as they can make it on top and back down with their movement distances(though if the hill is difficult terrain they would need to make dangerous tests every time you jump).



You can find the FAQs:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440134a&categoryId=1000018§ion=&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&start=2&multiPageMode=true

KRUDD wrote:
, and then have the transports "land" to again block LOS??

There is no mechanism currently in the game that allows you to change the way Tau skimmers block LOS, other than the vehicle being immobilised or wrecked (which allows you to remove the flight base).

You can only land a tau vehicle with landing gear if it didn't move in the movement phase. That being said I don't think you're allowed to take the vehicle off of the stand anymore.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You can only land a tau vehicle with landing gear if it didn't move in the movement phase. That being said I don't think you're allowed to take the vehicle off of the stand anymore.

You never were. People just assumed that you should, since it made sense that if the vehicle was landing it should come off the flight base.

Ahhhhh got ya. Well the not being able to land and block Los is pretty helpful. Is it assumed that you can shoot under a skimmer like that?

Can you draw LOS under the Skimmer? If so then yes, if not then no.

 Happyjew wrote:
Can you draw LOS under the Skimmer? If so then yes, if not then no.

Got ya. I would say yes my cron warriors can see under the skimmer. Thanks!

KRUDD wrote:
Got ya. I would say yes my cron warriors can see under the skimmer. Thanks!

That's really going to depend on the actual positioning of the models at the time.

Since the "landing" mechanic doesn't exist anymore the new trick is that you let the FW out and move the tank out of LOS in the movement phase. In the shooting phase, the FW shoot, then the tank moves flat out to block LOS for return fire.

If you're good, you can block LOS completely, at a minimum you can get your FW a cover save. You know, for the greater good.

maceria wrote:
Since the "landing" mechanic doesn't exist anymore the new trick is that you let the FW out and move the tank out of LOS in the movement phase. In the shooting phase, the FW shoot, then the tank moves flat out to block LOS for return fire.

If you're good, you can block LOS completely, at a minimum you can get your FW a cover save. You know, for the greater good.

This^

and under the current rules for moving over the unit, even if the devilfish would not make it over them (since it only moves 6" in shooting phase) it keeps going till it passes over them.

so your FW get out, kill stuff, then Fish flies over and gets an awesome jink save.

I dont see how any models can see under the devilfish if they are not laying down if its modeled on the proper stand. In 4th you could see under (which led to the fish of fury tactica) but since 5th Its been an issue as most models could not see underneath the short stand. It's been argued in the past one could use the stands designed for the drones as they come with the kit and would not be considered modelling for advantage, but I think no tau really wants to do that now.

Paitryn wrote:

maceria wrote:
Since the "landing" mechanic doesn't exist anymore the new trick is that you let the FW out and move the tank out of LOS in the movement phase. In the shooting phase, the FW shoot, then the tank moves flat out to block LOS for return fire.
If you're good, you can block LOS completely, at a minimum you can get your FW a cover save. You know, for the greater good.

This^
and under the current rules for moving over the unit, even if the devilfish would not make it over them (since it only moves 6" in shooting phase) it keeps going till it passes over them.

No, this doesn't happen. Simply because page 83 says Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either. which stops you from even trying.
You cannot use the If skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the skimmer minimum distance so that no models are left under it rule on page 83 either, simply because there is absolutely nothing forcing you to end your move over your own models durin normal/flat-out move as you can always move less than maximum. That rule is in place for Tank Shocks, Rams and special circumstances.

Paitryn wrote:
I dont see how any models can see under the devilfish if they are not laying down if its modeled on the proper stand.

Considering that seeing slightest portion of Firewarriors leg is enough for opponent get LOS to it, it isn't hard at all see models from under devilfish, as long as you're reasonable distance (12"+) away from the fish.You do get 5+ cover for the firewarriors though, so it's still good tactic.

Now, from Firewarriors perspective it is completely different thing as they're so much closer to the fish.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
You can only land a tau vehicle with landing gear if it didn't move in the movement phase. That being said I don't think you're allowed to take the vehicle off of the stand anymore.

You never were. People just assumed that you should, since it made sense that if the vehicle was landing it should come off the flight base.

Whilst page 83 tells you that except where Immobilized or Wrecked, "it is not otherwise permitted to remove the flying base, as Skimmers cannot land in battle conditions." The codex entry for landing gear states "...may choose to no longer count as a Skimmer..."

So although a skimmer cannot remove its flying base, can the model not remove its base as it is no longer a skimmer?

 spears wrote:
So although a skimmer cannot remove its flying base, can the model not remove its base as it is no longer a skimmer?

There is no rule that allows you to remove a model's base when something makes it not count as a skimmer, nor is there anything in the Landing Gear entry about removing the base. You just stop counting the vehicle as a skimmer.

To one: Yes. Awesome right!? To two: IMO, Also yes. Watch your step though.

So not that any of the RAW lawyers here will listen, but your just going to have to ask your friends. If your playing with a competitive group, you can go with this stuff. I have never had a problem with my friends when I remove the flight stand for 'landing' or for setting the model down on uneven terrain that the flight stand would sit on, but the top-heavy model didn't agree with, within reason of course. That last part is just for the safety of the model. If I have an issue, the argument is usually resolved with a combination of the following arguments:

The Sub-Penultimate Argument: If I don't remove the flying base, then I have a 'Tank', not 'Skimmer Tank' model, that is "modeled for advantage" because of its elevated firing position AND the firing slot underneath which about half of my models can actually shoot underneath without any modification or laying down. Can I put a Leman Russ on flight stands then? No? That's what I thought.

The Penultimate Argument: Flight stands are provided to models that can use them. Like Gargoyles, Tau Drones, some Jump/Jet pack models, Skimmers etc. When the vehicle no longer counts as a 'Skimmer Tank', its just a 'Tank'. Which notably would not be provided with a flight stand base, so to have one on it would be an illegal model again. Can I put a flight stand on my Landraider? No? Just checking.

Finally, the Ultimate Argument: Your right, page 83 says I cant remove a flight stand from 'Skimmers'. Absolutely correct. Cool story bro. But check this out. When I elect to use the 'Landing Gear', I am choosing to no longer count it as a 'Skimmer'. It's again, just a 'Tank'. And nothing in the rules says I am not allowed to remove flight stands from my 'Tanks'. Soooo.....yeeeaaahhh. Bee tee dubs, I don't suppose you'd let me build a Baneblade on a few flight stands would ya? Just kidding. I'm so hilarious...Bwahahahaha!

If you really wanted to get a funny look out of some one, when they go to put their models away after a game, tell them they're not allowed to remove the flight stands. After all, pg 83 never states anything about "in game only"! LOL! LOL-d-LOL! TROLL-o-LOL! Seriously, the pg 83 rule is so lax as to say, and I quote: "...If this is not possible (the base may have been glued on for example), don't worry about it. The skimmers anti-grav field is obviously still working...(it continues)" Now do you expect me to read that and not think they intended this to be a strictly casual game? Rules that say 'don't worry about it' in the same paragraph have got to lend some leniency. Just throwing that opinion out there.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Can I put a Leman Russ on flight stands then?

Is a Leman Russ supplied with a flight stand? No? That's why you can't put one on it.

It's nothing to do with it not being a skimmer. 'Skimmers have flight bases' does not equal 'Only Skimmers have flight bases'.

Your next two 'arguments' are the same as the first argument, just worded differently. And they all amount to the same thing: your logic is backwards.

Tau tanks come with flight bases, and so are required to be fielded on those bases. The basing rules care not a jot what class of vehicle it is, or whether or not the vehicle changes to some other sort mid-game. If the vehicle comes with a flight base, it must be on that flight base until the rules specifically tell you to remove it.

If you really wanted to get a funny look out of some one, when they go to put their models away after a game, tell them they're not allowed to remove the flight stands. After all, pg 83 never states anything about "in game only"!

It doesn't need to. The rules for a game by very definition only apply to that game.

I'm still waiting for you to disprove the point of allowance given to remove flight bases from tanks mid game. By the way love your location. Go Stardust!

There is nothing to disprove. No rule exists that allows you to remove the base except when the vehicle suffers an Immobilisation or is Wrecked.

Tanks don't have bases.

Then what's the round thing on the bottom of the Devilfish...?

A flight base supplied for use with skimmers. Which is why you field it with it on and are not allowed to use landing gear turn one. Go back to argument three. It quit being a skimmer, the flight base is now illegal. Cheers!

To the OP: See why I said "IMO, watch your step"? The rules are written for casual play. this RAW vs RAI stuff gets ugly quick.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
. It quit being a skimmer, the flight base is now illegal.

Why?

Please quote the rule that says this.

Which part? That it no longer 'Counts as a Skimmer' is under landing gear. Basing rules are on pg3 of BRB which says to use similar models as a guide, as in tanks. Are we done yet?

Not really, since you haven't quoted the rule I asked for. No longer counting as a skimmer has no bearing on whether or not it should have a base, and the basing rules actually prove the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

The vehicle rules simply say that vehicle usually don't have a base.
The basing rules tell us to use the base that is provided with the model.

There is no rule that says that a non-skimmer tank can not have a base.
There is also no rule that says that a skimmer tank that no longer counts as a skimmer should be removed from its base.

Tau skimmer tanks come with a base. As per the basing rules, they need to be fielded on that base. With no rule saying that non-skimmers can't have bases, or that landing means you should remove the base, there is no reason to do so within the rules of the game.

It's a perfectly acceptable house rule... just not what the rules say to do.

Apologies, would have gotten back to you sooner but it was DnD night here. Killed kobolds, advanced plots, discovered secrets about some PCs, no one died. Got 500gp. Bought a Horse. Good times were had by all. Any ways...sigh...I would like to say that your arguments are starting to sound like someone else's rhetoric that your simply unwilling to change and that this is all in vain. But one last time I will try. Just for you I found an entire new approach on the interpretation.

BRB, pg 3, Models and base sizes. "Sometimes a player may have models in his collection on unusually modeled bases." So if I say that: I left this models flight stand unglued as to represent it when its using its landing gear! Since I disregard the ENTIRE block of rules relevant to SKIMMERS ONLY, and there's stupidly/interestingly no rule on removing the base of non skimmers and the one that arguably does only assumes its mounted on there. I just get to say "well my model has an 'unusually modeled base'". I don't see this as any different from a token placed next to a unit to indicate pinning. Or removing the weapon from a model that has suffered a weapon destroyed. In the end its a book of extremely loose open ended rules that on this subject that just don't provide a straightforward answer. And yet here we are trying to make something out of it.

All your arguments have been presented to those I play with and you guessed it, they didn't care. But I did give them a fair and honest chance. Well my good man/woman, or whatever your anonymous internet identity conceals, I care not. It has been at least interesting though rather unenjoyable trying to enhance your experience of the game, but enough is enough, especially when you didn't catch so many jokes. You made something of a peace overture in your last post, and I will meet it. I agree to disagree. You do your thing and fuss over tiny bits of grammar, and I'll go have fun with immersive(sp?) models that change through game play. Lets call it quits on this one, again, until they FAQ it. Or just flip to page four and read up on the most important rule. What a beautiful ending.

Well, at the very least you've proven that you completely misunderstood the purpose of this forum.

The fact that players can agree to change the rules to suit themselves has no bearing on how the rules actually work. Please read the sticky thread on the tenets of this forum before taking part in any further rules discussions here.

I went back and checked the sticky. Followed every rule...but the rule that says not to use the most important rule (go figure that one out, lol ) right up till my last post where the infraction occurs in a more poetic friendly "the fight is over, lets be friends" manner than in any "This rule is binding, use it" sense...I honestly didn't remember that one and don't feel I really broke it...But ok. If you'd like to pick apart forum rules I could find us both in varying degrees of misconduct according to rule five, right? I felt I was walking the line pretty bad on it but your last post was a big "you are stupid" wrapped in oh-so-many-words with no other purpose, and I felt it stung a little. But whatever you know? We'd have to go slap admonitions of one type or another on most of the people here if we wanted to start this and I don't think that's the intent (we've all seen rules three and four crop up). Nor was it either of our intents to wound, I'm sure. I listened to your arguments, wasn't convinced. You listened to mine, you weren't convinced. I feel the thread a success in both purpose and spirit regardless of the end result. But as your last post, and by all means this one, are not progressing this thread towards its goal, please address further personal criticisms to my PM box where they belong, so that were not breaking Forum Code of Conduct Rule #2. I would like to make a motion to now lock this thread. Would you second it and do the honors? (Never felt the need to ask one be locked before, don't really know the procedure and this seemed appropriate. Sorry and thank you.)

KnuckleWolf wrote:
I went back and checked the sticky. Followed every rule...but the rule that says not to use the most important rule (go figure that one out, lol ) ...

We're here to discuss the rules of the game. It's perfectly acceptable to talk about how you choose to alter those rules (so long as you are clear on the fact that you are not talking about the actual rules), but that doesn't make your house rules 'correct' as per the rules. When we're trying to determine the colour of a blue house, arguing that it is red because you can choose to repaint it doesn't actually achieve anything productive.

This applies equally to things like the basing rules. You claimed that it's acceptable to remove the model's base because the rules make allowances for models not being based correctly with your opponent's agreement. Which, again, has no bearing on the actual rules, You can change whatever you want with opponent's agreement. The actual rules require the model to be on the correct base.

The reason that I 'wasn't convinced' by your argument is that you didn't actually present any valid rules to back it up. And no, taking that to PM serves no purpose, since part of the point of having these discussions is for others to also read them and see the arguments for the various ways a given rule is being interpreted. At this point, we have one interpretation that is within the rules, and one that is based on the assumption that the rules can be altered to suit the players. As I said before, your way is a perfectly acceptable house rule, and it's the way that a lot of people already play... but it's helpful where you are playing by an interpretation that differs from the actual rules to be aware that this is not what the rules actually call for, as it can save arguments when you find yourself playing someone who does it differently.

I apologise if this seems overly pedantic. You're certainly not the first to be taken aback by the way discussion here works. But if you can accept that there is a very large difference between a RAW argument and a HYWPI argument, that being clear on which you are addressing in your argument will cause fewer headaches, and that the 'most important rule' only has any place in HYWPI discussion and contributes nothing worthwhile to a RAW discussion, you'll find your time here much more pleasant.

*facepalm*

Ok everyone, look at it this way:

BRB says you may not remove the skimmer stem (what I'm calling it not that "flight base" is something else).

Landing gear rule says it no longer counts as skimmer. It does not give you allowance to remove the stem.

This second part is the primary reason the FoF was gimped with the move to TLOS in 5e: it doesn't count as a skimmer, so..... it can't dodge tank shocks and is easier to hit in CC. Since it's TLOS you can still shoot under it, and it no longer gets cover from terrain unless that terrain blocks LOS.... which it would anyway.

RAW is actually pretty clear: it's still on the base, it just doesn't get any useful skimmer rules. I think there are no longer any negatives to being a skimmer, ie in 4th you would crash if imobilised.

I think there was even a FAQ in 5e that said ignore the landing gear, but I may be mistaken.

For us Tau players the landing gear is another special Tau trick, like ignoring target priority, that is just preposterously outdated.

That being said, my friends and I usually house rule that when the Tau tanks land you take them off the stem, because it looks cool, and offers no significant advantage (it take a lot for the Tau to have a significant advantage).

Until its FAQ'd or made to have errata by an official source, our group finds enough logic and solid rule material, whether anyone agrees with it or not, to say that its not 'How we would play it' and to us it somehow is just 'RAW'. Heaven forbid we interpret the casual - chicken scratches of a rule book that constantly says it doesn't always work with other rules in the game, and even gives you rules on how to deal with its own screw ups (not that we're talking about those right now) - in a way different from others. IMO, this is what it is, we(my friends and I) are in a different black and white, from everyone else's black and white. Metaphorically speaking. That's, IMO, why this has been so difficult. Further, IMHO, It is not mutually exclusive to have rules interpreted by two different parties-who each within their party agree-in different manners. This notably does start arguments as there cant be two 'black and white' answers occupying the same space, even though they can each self sustained in their own vacuums. Unfortunately I don't see any way to adjudicate such a circumstance as per this forums rules in such a case except to say: The general consensus is that RAW it is in fact illegal to remove the base and that's just the way it goes. But check with your players as many house rule it for various reasons.<--- I think that right there is just what it's going to have to be.

I can't wait until this gets FAQ'd and we never have an argument about it again. With as many people that have said around here that they do it anyway, and the vast majority that say the RAW are clear to the counter (though I/we disagree), I am really curious which way the trees going to fall. Quick aside, I thought there was a errata or something that nixed landing gear too, but now I can't find it in the most recent BRB FAQs or Tau FAQs. I tried finding it again when I first came in to this, probably missing it. It would solve so much right now LOL