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.

 grendel083 wrote:
All vehicles, particularly fliers, have the same problem.

Heldrakes

Got to love the whole 'measure from the base' thanks to that Frequently Asked Question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rideld2,

Then why all the posts I have been able to find online stating that these models came with multiple stem's in fifth?

Again, no personal experience with fifth edition models here, so if I am in mistake that the kit came with multiple stems at least we know why. I have been taking my conclusions based on other peoples posts in this forum and others, all stating that a choice existed for these particular models. If this is in error then I guess the question of 'what about grandfathering in old kits like every says we should be doing?' is no longer relevant.

It's interesting... after reading this thread I went back and looked at the rule book... and you guys are right, the rules are pretty darn clear. Odd thing is I've never see anyone around these parts (and that's including several local tournaments in different towns, i.e. different TOs & gaming groups), even mention a downward firing arc limitation.

It is a very hard to find restriction, particularly if you are not using hull based weapons and are therefore used to the whole 'physically point and shoot' element. This is made a little worse by the fact the rule is berried within the section of the book detailing firing arcs, which I guess we should be happy about because it is at least in the right section of the book. The rule itself also causes you to quickly forget or discard it after reading, as it goes out of it's way to inform us that vertical angel is something we will rarely need to calculate. All in all, it looks as if it was a thumb-tacked on rule that was never given the consideration it deserves.

JinxDragon wrote:
Then why all the posts I have been able to find online stating that these models came with multiple stem's in fifth?

Are you sure they weren't talking about skimmers?
I believe the first actual flyer model was the Imperial Guard Valkyrie.
This came with the large oval and stem used by all flyers today.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rideld2,

Then why all the posts I have been able to find online stating that these models came with multiple stem's in fifth?

Again, no personal experience with fifth edition models here, so if I am in mistake that the kit came with multiple stems at least we know why. I have been taking my conclusions based on other peoples posts in this forum and others, all stating that a choice existed for these particular models. If this is in error then I guess the question of 'what about grandfathering in old kits like every says we should be doing?' is no longer relevant.

Which models? Which posts?
Find a valkyrie that came on a short stand.
Find a Stormraven that came on a short stand.
Neither of the Necron Flyers ever did.

None of those models ever had a choice. You've confused the flight stand (small clear plastic with varying heights) with the flyer base (large oval, transparent cross stand). The flight stand (comes with skimmers) does have varying height stands and people have posted about that asking about Devilfish and Wave Serpents since forever... but I've literally never seen a post talking about a Valkyrie on a flight stand. Ever.

JinxDragon wrote:
All in all, it looks as if it was a thumb-tacked on rule that was never given the consideration it deserves.

Why give consideration to things like rules that have a major impact on a prevalent unit type when you could be Forging meaningless buzzwords a Narrative.

They where talking about flyers in these situations, though what I now suspect is duel use of the term 'flyer stem' has me wondering if mistakes in communications have occurred due to that fact. One of the threads I do know for sure where talking about flyers happened several months ago on this very forum. I remember it because it was the thread which brought this very rule to my attention, which I then spread around much to the pleasure of flyer-hating players. The whole question of the 'dead zone' came up within that thread and it seemed commonly accepted that different sized stems where in use by flyers and that, as long as it was the stem that came with the kit, the player had a choice in what stem to use.

I also still have to ask:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

JinxDragon wrote:
They where talking about flyers in these situations, though what I now suspect is duel use of the term 'flyer stem' has me wondering if mistakes in communications have occurred due to that fact. One of the threads I do know for sure where talking about flyers happened several months ago on this very forum. I remember it because it was the thread which brought this very rule to my attention, which I then spread around much to the pleasure of flyer-hating players. The whole question of the 'dead zone' came up within that thread and it seemed commonly accepted that different sized stems where in use by flyers and that, as long as it was the stem that came with the kit, the player had a choice in what stem to use.

Like I said - you've confusing the "flyer stem" (the + looking piece) with the flight bases. I guarantee it.

I also still have to ask:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

They. Were. Never. Issued. With. Flight. Bases. (the clear ones)

How many times do I need to say that?

Caestus Assault Ram?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or What about the Thunderhawk Gunship? Have they always had the "flyer stem" (the + looking piece)?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Caestus Assault Ram?

Not familiar with it because it's forgeworld, but that's FW's issue and not really pertinent to the question at hand.

Or What about the Thunderhawk Gunship? Have they always had the "flyer stem" (the + looking piece)?

Pretty sure the Thunderhawk never was sold with any base, let alone the + piece or the clear flight stand.

JinxDragon wrote:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

Valkyrie, StormRaven, Razorwing, Ork Bomber (think that's all of them that were reclassified).
They always used large oval bases and flying stem.

I think ForgeWorld used to use a rod system, but that's not quite relevant. The Thunderhawk definitely never used a Flying base. It would crush it dust..
Caestus uses the same base as any other flyer.

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
What about all the skimmers that where re-classified as flyers?

Valkyrie, StormRaven, Razorwing, Ork Bomber (think that's all of them that were reclassified).
They always used large oval bases and flying stem.

I think ForgeWorld used to use a rod system, but that's not quite relevant. The Thunderhawk definitely never used a Flying base. It would crush it dust..
Caestus uses the same base as any other flyer.

'
Just imagine a manta on a flying base...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Just imagine a manta on a flying base...

Squish.

Soooooooo in relevance to the OP:

How do you rule the 45* Arc on the now **Flying** Thunderhawk that'll apear in all Escalations?
Edit: If it's **Flying** on no stand =P

Just like normal... Why would it get special treatment?

How does the horizontal/vertical arc apply to weapons that can move? For instance, a LR hull mounted heavy bolter can move side to side. Or the heavy bolters on the bastion have a slight movement too. What about flyer guns that can move up and down? Does this increase the arc? Do you move it to the desired angle, then measure arc?

The arc is for weapons that can't move. If it can move it can only shoot to the extent it can move.

rigeld2 wrote:
The arc is for weapons that can't move. If it can move it can only shoot to the extent it can move.

Which includes 45* up and down? (Say Bastion HB, or other weapons which might only pivot)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
This has got me thinking on how Flyer rules apply to thunderhawks or in general (Might need a new thread for this)

You measure all weapons LoS from barrels right?
Flyers may "Share" their base with other land units, and stand atop any terrain whatsoever right?

So technically the TH should be on a stand of some sort? and flyers cant shoot at each other behind Bastions? I see issues arising, especially since the TH would *not see* behind a hill, even though it's a flyer..?

Well, I just bumped a short-cut combo that ate my post.... yay.

Ridgeld2,

Well seeing you just stated the reclassified skimmers where never issued with a flight base which you then described as the clear one... I would say pretty good chance of confusion. Game Workshop has a very dangerous habit of using similar sounding terminology, if not identical terminology, and it always leads to these sort of problems when we talk about the rules in open forums. This is clearly no difference, a review of the Game Workshop store brings forth three different stem designs all classified as 'flying stem and base.' One is the clear X design, that I thought where the default base for flyers from this edition, the other two are the smooth rounded design with a see through base, seen used on a lot of non-flyer based models with just a base change. If they sell both as 'flying stems' is it really that surprising that confusion might exist as to which stem we are legally allowed to use for a flyer?

At this point the only way for me to conclude if the question I raised is valid would be to purchase any lingering fourth and fifth edition model kit's and confirm for myself. Given that it would take a deal of time, money and effort that I do not want to expend over this possible misunderstanding it is understandable that I chose not to do this. I still think the question is valid even if it is nothing more then a hypothetical as, to my knowledge, no rule exists giving us permission to force an opponent to use the stem designed for flyers simply because it is a flyer. Should someone be able to make a very good argument as to why they other stem's are just as valid, such as it being included in the kit to begin with should it have

It all seems to come down to using what came in the kit.

There were no older 4th ed flyer models.
The first reclassified skimmer was the Valkyrie, for 5th in 2009 and had a large oval base with stem, same as it has now.

a sabove.

You can just take our word for it, that anything which currently uses the + shaped stem have not used the round one. GW dont like redoing kits.

BlackTalos,
Can you quote for me the page which states a flyer can 'share it's base' with other units?

I know rules exist for models to stand underneath the flyer in question but this does not automatically translate to being able to share the same space as the model, or somehow stand on top of the the flyers base which is what I take away from your 'share' comment. From my understanding, the base is still considered part of the model even though many exceptions exist preventing us from treating it as such in a wide range of circumstances. To my knowledge, no such exception exists within the rule informing us that another model can stand underneath the flyer itself. This would force us to count the base as part of the model when it comes to seeing if a model is able to fit 'under the flyer,' and given the microscopic space we have to utilize it is not something easily proved.

Though, again, I am a little unsure right now so is there any rule I over-looked that prevents the base from being part of the model for the purpose of standing a model underneath it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nosferatu1001,

If I do have to 'just take the word for it' from anyone, I would rather it be Rideld2, Grendel083 or yourself. I do not always agree with your conclusions but I trust your ability to research the topic far more then a good chunk of the others here, including the regulars. If you three are willing to state that the X shaped flyer base, I think that is the right one, is the only base provided with official flyers then that is an answer I can accept. I still have some doubt, but that is more because I do not trust Game Workshop not to screw that up then any thing you three could address. We shall just sum all this up as a mis-understanding caused by Game Workshop's inability to clearly separate it's terminology in a way that doesn't allow duel or interchangeable terms.

Sometimes I find their lack of clear terminology to be fun but other times it is just annoying.

Their consistency is quite annoying.
Too consistent at times, not changing terminology between editions. Not consist at enough at other times.

They have flying bases, then the bring out flyers that don't use them. But the name remains...

i am referring P80: Models that physically fit under a Flyer model (I read "on it's base") can move beneath it. Likewise, a Flyer can end its move over such models.

So unless you want to put your flyer stand on top of marine heads, they share the base.
So how does a thunderhawk do this?

I'll create a new thread with a better worded question =)

Under the flyer =/= on its base. You can place a model underneath the bits of the flyer that hang over the edge of the base.

Same page, slightly higher: "The base of a Flyer is effectively ignored, except when:"

And none of the 2 exceptions say anything about models under it.

There is no Rule in book stating a unit cannot share a base with others? Or state one or a page if there is?

The FAQ saying you cannot move through other models, and a model occupies the area of its base...

This is where your problem is:
The two rules are in two completely different sections, signifying they are different sub-rules, over a larger rule-set.

The first section, which contains the ignore except for these two exceptions, are all about measuring to the unit. It is a restriction designed to prevent a player from claiming the flier is withing X when only the base is within X. A rule preventing a player from making that measurement, and therefor using it to trigger a rule, effectively kills such scenarios without having to find a way to actually levitate the models. The exceptions that exist are both designed for situations where measuring to the hull might actually be impossible, or at least very implausible, and it ends up breaking some element of the game. One for assaults, which they clearly wanted to be a big threat to hovering flyer's in order to make it a dangerous tactical decision to remove the Hard to Hit restrictions. The second is for disembarking, which literally would be impossible without an exception stating you have permission to measure to the base. After all the rule states the model has to be placed in contact with the access point to begin with and it is still debatable if wobbly model syndrome covers 'hovering in mid air cause a rule ignored gravity and now I must too.'

The second section would also need to contain a similar exception when it comes to being able to 'place' the model, which is lacking.

Now let me point out something interesting about the inclusion of the one inch bubble: without such a restriction it becomes possible to argue the flyer can end it's turn in base contact with an enemy or at least smack bang in the middle of an entire unit. This is because the the rule states outright a model can end it's turn under a flyer, proving it can fit. I bold those words because that is the permission that could be evoked to get around the 1 inch bubble, as it is possible for an enemy model to fit under a wing with a 0.5 inch clearance. If there was no mention to the 1 inch bubble, then it leads to all sorts of situations that are broken and I won't need to go into detail with them much. Needless to say, locked in combat rules triggering on a zooming flyer to prevent it's movement phase would be hilarious....

So sorry, it is not an exception to some 'continue to ignore the base' clause and players still need to prove the model can fit underneath the base if they want to end their turn there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The FAQ saying you cannot move through other models, and a model occupies the area of its base...

I would actually quote this as an answer: If you can physically fit without being "through" it, why not?

I understand there is no rule about "you can be on it's base", but there is no rule about "you Can't be on it's base"?

The only example I can use from memory is the Hirophant Tyranids Bio-titan that sits on a square base aprox 10" by 10", which i suppose most people place over other models?

I'm not advocating truth, just asking if anyone has a clear statement of rules that i can't move a model onto my Flyer's base (effectively we can ignore the 1" bubble for enemy models here)