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.

Let's say a skimmer parks on top of a building and its it's directly above my unit in LoS. If I choose to shoot at it and the angle is pretty much directly up, is that resolved at front, side or rear armor?

There's no way to resolve it. I'd play it as side.

I'm a bit unsure, as I don't think there are any rules that deal with this situation.

I do know, however, that when there's an effect that, fluffwise, would hit the under armour of a tank (like mines), the rule for that typically will say resolve it against the rear armour.
Similarly, the inverse of that (hitting the top armour) is typically resolved against the side armour (as shown by bombs and barrages).

In saying that, no RAW way that I'm aware of.

see what arc you are in, front side or rear, thats what you hit.

shooting from an elevated, or lower spot, doesnt matter.

rules wize, its 2d for arcs, so height isnt a factor.

straight beneath the target? fricked if I know, house rule it in a way you both agree on and keep having fun!

What easysauce said. Height doesn't matter; draw the lines to determine AV arcs as normal, and even if a model is directly above or below the vehicle, you can see which arc it is in.

There doesn't seem to be a rule explaining how to handle a model that is straddling the line between multiple AV zones, but on the off chance a model is in the exact centre of the vehicle, I would just allow the shooting player to choose.

Pretty much as Easysauce says, as i am quite sure there are a few rules about being "on top of" other units, including owned buildings.

If it was top level of a ruin and you are below it, did it have line of sight? It had to be "standing" on something and that something would block line of sight.

I will side with the 'it doesn't matter, treat it as 2D' conclusion, because the Rule are rarely written with the Third Dimension in mind, but it really is a terrible situation....
Why can't they just bring back bottom and top Facings, even if it is just a Rule stating to use Side Armor like they tend to default to?

would the "skimmers can't end their movement phase on top of units" rule come into play?

Oberron wrote:
would the "skimmers can't end their movement phase on top of units" rule come into play?

No, because the Skimmer landed on top of a ruin / building and not a unit.

Let the shooter choose if it is indeed exactly at center. By parking directly above a unit, the defending player has, wittingly or not, exposed all armor facings for the choosing.

The rules for facings are clear. You can't just "choose" one.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Oberron wrote:
would the "skimmers can't end their movement phase on top of units" rule come into play?

No, because the Skimmer landed on top of a ruin / building and not a unit.

I mean when it becomes the skimmer's turn and the unit below it hasn't moved. must the skimmer then move? The unit is "under the skimmer like in op's statement. Since thinking in more then 2d gives wh40k rules a headache and all

I don't get what you're saying. Why would the skimmer be forced to move? It can't move. It did not land on top of the unit (as it may not), it landed on top of a ruin. There's no need for any 2d thinking either, use the regular rules for vehicle facings.

Unless there's something I'm missing...

For the Skimmer to be able to fit above a unit without the "on top of units" rule coming in to play, it must be on the top floor of a Ruin (and able to balance there, so 51% on the Top floor, at least.)

That same top floor would block Line of sight from the unit below, IE this situation is so very rare. the 51% of the skimmer on the floor being the front of it for example, i am quite sure the unit would be in the rear/ side arc.

A picture of the situation would have been ideal for this post, OP would have a camera phone, just snap it and upload

It would be enough if the unit could see a part of it. The skimmer will most likely get a cover save, fosho, but seeing it would not be much of a problem.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't get what you're saying. Why would the skimmer be forced to move? It can't move. It did not land on top of the unit (as it may not), it landed on top of a ruin. There's no need for any 2d thinking either, use the regular rules for vehicle facings.

Unless there's something I'm missing...

I'll try and restate what i am trying to say since it is being misunderstood. Ignore the shooting under a skimmer part and focus on the unit is under the skimmer part.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
#####
#####
#####
#####UUUU

X is the skimmer #I s the building the skimmer is on and U is the unit "directly under" the skimmer unless I am misunderstanding the op. Let say it is skimmer player's turn and he doesn't move the skimmer OR the unit is right by the building and he moves the skimmer on top so now he is on the building but part of the hull is over the unit below. Does this mean the skimmer is forced to move as per pg 89 "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it." it landed on a building/ruin but part of the hull is over an enemy unit.

Clearer?



Edit: i know how to find an answer to op's brain teaser. The "x" to determine facing is pretty much at the edge of the building/ruin. get to a facing where you can see the unit and the skimmer have the x over the vehicle and look at the unit. If the unit is directly in the middle of the vehicle facing you shoot at front. If the unit is just a little bit towards one side or the other use "If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle (some models in the front and some in the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for each facing."

Why would the skimmer be forced to move, he is not over friendly or enemy models, he is above them.

I would resolve the shot from where the majority of the unit is firing from, it is unlikely that your unit will be entirely under the exact middle point of the vehicle.

blaktoof wrote:
I would resolve the shot from where the majority of the unit is firing from, it is unlikely that your unit will be entirely under the exact middle point of the vehicle.

Each shot is resolved against whichever facing it is firing against. There is no 'majority facing'.

I am struggling to think of a possible situation where this would come up. The one model that is directly below the centre point of the skimmer would have its line of sight blocked by whatever the skimmer was resting on.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I would resolve the shot from where the majority of the unit is firing from, it is unlikely that your unit will be entirely under the exact middle point of the vehicle.

Each shot is resolved against whichever facing it is firing against. There is no 'majority facing'.

I am struggling to think of a possible situation where this would come up. The one model that is directly below the centre point of the skimmer would have its line of sight blocked by whatever the skimmer was resting on.

How about the situation where there is a single guy directly above the center point of a skimmer that is beneath a bridge that can be seen through?

Dra'al Nacht wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I would resolve the shot from where the majority of the unit is firing from, it is unlikely that your unit will be entirely under the exact middle point of the vehicle.

Each shot is resolved against whichever facing it is firing against. There is no 'majority facing'.

I am struggling to think of a possible situation where this would come up. The one model that is directly below the centre point of the skimmer would have its line of sight blocked by whatever the skimmer was resting on.

ive seen a few sets of ruins with holes in the floor where it is possible to have a model directly under another with LoS , rare, but these "magical" situations are out there.

 DeathReaper wrote:
How about the situation where there is a single guy directly above the center point of a skimmer that is beneath a bridge that can be seen through?

The rulebook is a little bit vague about what you do when a model is sitting at the exact intersection between two facings. HIWPI is that you choose which facing that you shoot at, but it might be more appropriate to randomly choose a facing (neither method is explicitly supported).

Odd question, but when shooting, don't you measure from the edge of the base and not from the center of the base?

That's my understanding. So, if a model with a circular base is immediately below the centerpoint of a vehicle (we'll assume the vehicle is precariously balanced on a narrow bridge somewhere above the model), wouldn't the model techincally have "firing points" (i.e., bits of the edge of its base) within all 4 facings? In this case, the model could just shoot from the "rear" edge of its base and hit the rear facing.

Does this make sense?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note that in this case all spots on the model's base edge would be equally distant from the hull of the vehicle, so the model should be able to choose where the shot originates from.

Measurements are always taken from the two closest points on the model, so even in situations where an oval base is long enough that different measurements would point to different facings we still lack the ability to simply choose where to measure from. We are required to calculate which parts on that base is the closest to the vehicle and make all measurements from there. It does not eliminate the problem of course, it is still possible to have an oval base where the closest point is right on the intersect line, but makes it a little harder to be in a situation where it is impossible to tell which facing is the 'closest.'

We can now draw line of sight from any part on a model, and since the skimmer would be on apart of a ruin floor, some of the skimmer would be blocked from some of the shooting model. Thus wouldn't we be able to draw a "majority" line of slight from other parts of the shooting model to a facing on the skimmer?

*I know this does not take into account if the skimmer is on a transparent surface that the shooting model can see through

optimusprime14 wrote:
We can now draw line of sight from any part on a model, and since the skimmer would be on apart of a ruin floor, some of the skimmer would be blocked from some of the shooting model. Thus wouldn't we be able to draw a "majority" line of slight from other parts of the shooting model to a facing on the skimmer?

*I know this does not take into account if the skimmer is on a transparent surface that the shooting model can see through

it is not about drawing Line of Sight, it is about the "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from" rules.

If a model is in two or more facings it does not give any rules to resolve that situation.

Wouldn't you just dice off in a situation like that?

 Kriswall wrote:
Wouldn't you just dice off in a situation like that?

HIWPI is one thing, and I am sure most if not all gamers would find an amiable solution to this issue through a house rule.

But I was talking RAW.

There doesn't appear to be a RaW solution.

The model underneath would be equally distant from all 4 facings assuming he was centered on the exact center of the vehicle. Any model NOT centered on the exact center of the vehicle, but centered on one of the facing dividers would be equally distant from two facings.

The rules don't allow for a situation where you are equally distant from two or more facings.

As such, you would have to house rule it, or use the go to general rule of dicing off in the issue of a dispute.

 Kriswall wrote:
or use the go to general rule of dicing off in the issue of a dispute.

That only works for two people that cannot agree on the application of a rule.

TMIR wrote:If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply...

Which is not the case here as there are no rules to cover it.