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.

Weird battle today. My ghost ark was surrounded by enemies such that it couldn't move without ending within 1" of an enemy unit. My stance on the subject was that it would simply move until it was more than 1" away from the enemy as per the skimmer rule. His stance was that it couldn't move at all. What is dakka's take on it?

A skimmer may move over enemy models. If it ends it's move within one inch, it moves the shortest distance until is is not. The rules are very cut and dry. There is nothing preventing the movement.

 cardboardcrackhead wrote:
A skimmer may move over enemy models. If it ends it's move within one inch, it moves the shortest distance until is is not. The rules are very cut and dry. There is nothing preventing the movement.

But that could still result in the skimmer essentially not moving at all. If it was completely surrounded by 25" of enemies (highly unlikely), then moving 12" would put him 13" away from the edge of the enemy group, and 12" away from his starting position, thus forcing him to slide back to where he began. If he was surrounded by less than 24" of enemies in all directions (much more likely), then he would slide away from his original position.

I could see this happening if the skimmer were in a corner, and surrounded by Tyranids, who have hordes and bulky FMCs, or Orks, who have hordes and bulky Wagons. But it seems like cornering a single skimmer by using a whole army wouldn't be the best tactic....

sonicaucie wrote:
Weird battle today. My ghost ark was surrounded by enemies such that it couldn't move without ending within 1" of an enemy unit. My stance on the subject was that it would simply move until it was more than 1" away from the enemy as per the skimmer rule. His stance was that it couldn't move at all. What is dakka's take on it?

How is this even possible? Skimmers can move 12 inches, how did he completely surround your skimmer?

Either way, if this is possible the skimmer can not move at all. This is because you were not forced to end your movement over an enemy, you elected to do so, and since you can not elect to end your movement over an enemy unit this was an illegal move.

Not to mention as a ghost ark, it can tan shock it's way through, possibly creating a space to move to.

Jefffar wrote:
Not to mention as a ghost ark, it can tan shock it's way through, possibly creating a space to move to.

Yes if it can tank shock, then it can move and create space.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Not to mention as a ghost ark, it can tan shock it's way through, possibly creating a space to move to.

Yes if it can tank shock, then it can move and create space.

I thought you had to be a tank to tank shock.

The situation came up as a result of infiltrating using master of ambush. The opponent moved his vehicles and disembarked some troops so it couldn't move. I elected to try and move over the enemy and then remembered the rule regarding skimmers being forced to end their move over enemy units.

sonicaucie wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Not to mention as a ghost ark, it can tan shock it's way through, possibly creating a space to move to.

Yes if it can tank shock, then it can move and create space.

I thought you had to be a tank to tank shock.

The situation came up as a result of infiltrating using master of ambush. The opponent moved his vehicles and disembarked some troops so it couldn't move. I elected to try and move over the enemy and then remembered the rule regarding skimmers being forced to end their move over enemy units.

You need to be a tank or have rules that allow you to Tank shock to be able to tank shock.

I was going off of what Jefffar said when he said "Not to mention as a ghost ark, it can tan shock it's way through"

That is why I said IF it can tank shock, then it can move...

I thought Ghost Arks counted as tanks

Jefffar wrote:
I thought Ghost Arks counted as tanks

The FAQ does not list them as Tanks, they are Chariots.

So they can not Tank Shock.

Wrong vehicle. Ghost Ark = Open topped Skimmer, Catacomb Command Barge = Chariot.

You are correct in that they do not count as tanks though, only the monolith has that privilege.

 Neorealist wrote:
Wrong vehicle. Ghost Ark = Open topped Skimmer, Catacomb Command Barge = Chariot.

Good thing you edited out Tank from the Ghost Ark, because it is not a Tank either

Yeah, true story. And to address the OP's question, whomever has stated you move until your ghost ark model is >1 inch from all enemy ones is correct, so you were right in the scenario you posted.

I'm just wondering how it even happened that you had 360 degree enemies for 13" thick....

 Neorealist wrote:
Yeah, true story. And to address the OP's question, whomever has stated you move until your ghost ark model is >1 inch from an enemy one is correct, so you were right in the scenario you posted.

No they were not correct.

If you do not have room to move the skimmer it may not move.

This is because you were not forced to end your movement over an enemy, you elected to do so, and since you can not elect to end your movement over an enemy unit this is an illegal move.

On the contrary, you 'are' forced to 'end' your move over top of at least one enemy unit in that scenario. The rule says nothing about not being forced to 'begin' your move in such a scenario, only where the model ended up.

The only possible way for a skimmer to end it's move over top of anything is because a player elected to place it there in the first place. Indicating that they could have chose another place to put it (or none at all) is not really pertinent to this discussion since the rule itself would be irrelevant if it was dependant on the vehicle ending up over an enemy unit without it's controlling player having contrived to place it there.

 Neorealist wrote:
On the contrary, you 'are' forced to 'end' your move over top of at least one enemy unit in that scenario. The rule says nothing about not being forced to 'begin' your move in such a scenario, only where the model ended up.

The only possible way for a skimmer to end it's move over top of anything is because a player elected to place it there in the first place. Indicating that they could have chose another place to put it (or none at all) is not really pertinent to this discussion since the rule itself would be irrelevant if it was dependant on the vehicle ending up over an enemy unit without it's controlling player having contrived to place it there.

No, there is the possibility of being forced to end your move over enemy models with deepstrike. Sadly even though deepstrike says it counts as moving, it is very specific as to being deployed, so precludes the use of the rule. The rule to move skimmers off of units it is forced to end over is very redundant/worthless, and a waste of ink, because it does nothing at all in the game. It doesn't save you from mishaps, the movement rules disallow you from ending a move near an enemy model, tank shock specifically moves models out from under the tank, non tanks can't tank shock(barring a special rule which then follows all the tanks shock rules) and I believe they have removed the weapons that move enemy models(though I could be wrong) and as far as I can tell, ramming automatically tank shocks any unit between it and it's target vehicle.

I think it should be an axiom that if you have to pick between two interpretations, one of which has a given rule do absolutely nothing and one of which doesn't, the latter one should be given preference.

Is it really plausible that the authors can conceive of a point to writing a rule (in multiple editions now no less) that doesn't have a single actual-in game effect?

 Neorealist wrote:
I think it should be an axiom that if you have to pick between two interpretations, one of which has a given rule do absolutely nothing and one of which doesn't, the latter one should be given preference.

Is it really plausible that the authors can conceive of a point to writing a rule (in multiple editions now no less) that doesn't have a single actual-in game effect?

Skimmer tanks immobilized/stunned during a tank shock when flying over one unit to hit another.
So there is a single in game effect. It gets brought up every time this is mentioned so I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
Or a Ram. (Which is a special tank shock, but you knew that)

True, however both of those are the result of the player choosing to move his or her skimmer over top of enemy units to begin with. If what deathreaper said was true, you would not be able to start such a movement if the result was such; making the rule entirely without purpose.

 Neorealist wrote:
True, however both of those are the result of the player choosing to move his or her skimmer over top of enemy units to begin with. If what deathreaper said was true, you would not be able to start such a movement if the result was such; making the rule entirely without purpose.

Not true. The goal isn't to end over the unit, the goal is to tank shock/ram yourself a hole.
You didn't elect to have your movement interrupted - it was done for you.

Your assertion gives Skimmers a whole lot of potential extra movement.

I wasn't referring to the 'goal' of the player. Their (the players') intent by the action is not factored into 'any' of the rules I'm familiar with (and does not matter in the slightest, rules-wise), let alone this specific one.

Regardless of whether the player specifically intends on 'making a hole', or simply taking advantage of a poorly worded rule to eke out some extra movement for their skimmer (or any other possible motivation) is irrelevant. As written you are only prohibited from ending the movement of the skimmer over top of an enemy unit and are given rules to resolve such. No prohibition exists against deciding to 'begin' moving the model deliberately in a direction that will result in it's normal maximum movement distance intersecting with an enemy unit.

You do not need a prohibition "against deciding to 'begin' moving the model deliberately"

If you deliberately move a model so it ends its move over a model that skimmer was not forced to end its move in that place, that was a choice to finish the models movement over an enemy, not a forced situation.

You attribute a specific definition of the word 'forced' that is not found within the context of 40k.

As I understand your point, you are equating 'forced' with 'the player had no choice' whereas I am defining it as 'the situation requires it'. As I stated earlier, the intent of the player does not matter. Regardless of wether or not the player deliberately chose to move his skimmer such that it ended up over top of an enemy unit, or if that situation was the result of some improbable happenstance the end result is the same.

There is a general rule saying you cannot move a vehicle through an enemy unit, and a very real (and more specific) skimmer rule that explicitly states that you can. From there, you certainly cannot elect to stop moving the skimmer in that position as you are not allowed to voluntarily end your movement there. However if some other rule 'forces' the skimmer to stop there (such as having run out of the distance you can move it in the turn) the latter rule comes into effect. Even if the player is deliberately engineering the scenario so that precise event occurs.

If you get Immobilized from a Death or glory attack sure, that forces you to stop, but not if you "run out of the distance you can move it in the turn" because you have the choice of moving elsewhere that is a legal move.

Having the choice to move the skimmer elsewhere does not mean it's not entirely legal to move the skimmer over the unit to begin with. You seem to be missing the point I'm making rather consistently: You have permission to place the model over an enemy unit. The reason you are then 'forced' to stop moving the skimmer does not matter (as in, there is no specific rule saying it 'does' matter), so long as it is any valid rules-supported reason. (as the end of an allowed movement distance certainly is)

Here is the rule again: "...Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either..." Note it does not say, 'unless it ends it's move on top of either' or 'provided the player hasn't chosen to place the skimmer on top of either' or anything similar to that, that would support your point.

Skimmers "cannot end their move on top of either..."

that alone stops you from ending their move there.

Yep. But it doesn't stop other rules from 'forcing' you to end your move there should the player happen to have been moving his vehicle over the enemy unit. For example this rule: "... if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase ..." in conjunction with the 'VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE' rules.

In short, you can move your vehicle over the enemy unit, and other rules can then force you to stop moving your vehicle at that point (not necessarily earlier in your move action), activating the second part of the skimmer movement rules. Simple. easy.

No, since "...Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either..." tells us that you can not willingly try to end a skimmers move on top of another model.

Pretty sure Deathreaper is right. If you had a legal move available, then you can't just use the rules on skimmers to juke your way into some extra free distance.