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.

Can a skimmer transport flying over a wood feature of area terrain disembark troops into the woods? This is not using cityfight rules mind you, just the standard game. I cant find anything in the rules that says "no" but it doesnt seem right to me....

...and since there is something in the rules that says "yes," it is allowed.

You will not find it to be a problem if you resist the urge to think about what is right and just focus on what the rules say instead.

You are sounding a lot like Jervis these days.

- Greenie

Can a skimmer transport flying over a wood feature of area terrain disembark troops into the woods...cant find anything in the rules that says "no" but it doesnt seem right to me....

Well if the rules allowing it aren't enough for you, as previously suggested and you need it to feel right (remember this is all abstract fiction anyway)...

Go look up "Fast Roping"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-roping

Fast-roping is a technique for descending down a thick rope. It is useful for deploying troops from a helicopter in places where the helicopter itself is unable or unwilling to touch down.

(Skimmers actually do deploy troops strait over vegetative canopies, cities, onto roof tops and more, strange I know, but there is even a real world parallel.)

Hope this helps it "feel" right. (Assuming aliens with rocket sled skimmer transports like Tau and Eldar still have something as Archaic as "Rope" feels right.)

I think the reason why poisonrogue brought this up in the first place is that in Cities of Death you have to pay extra for the ability to deploy troops in terrain. It's called "rapelling ropes" or something like that there.

The feeling of "not-rightness" I think is being created by the fact that in CoD you have to pay for it, but in the regular game you don't. Personally I think that the CoD terrain rules actually work better, but you can't expect them to crop up regularly at tournaments.

I suspect the problem there is simply that whoever wrote the COD book didn't realise that it was already allowed by the regular rules...

My problem with it not "feeling right" comes from the rules interpretation. True, nowhere in the rulebook does it say you cant, but it doesnt say that troops all of a sudden come with rapeling lines, drop chutes, or whatever either. It doesnt say that my troops all dont have invisibility fields which makes them impervious to shooting, but it doesnt say anywhere in the books that they dont either. I just dont like logic based upon, "well it doesn't say i can't...".Thats making a lot of assumptions.

If a skimmer is flying ABOVE size three terrain, it is all of a sudden dumping them to ground level and in difficult terrain? This to me is a hole in the rules which should be FAQ'd. As can be seen by the addition of the Cities of Death mods, allowing this to happen was clearly not the intent of GW or they wouldn't have made it necessary to purchase vehicle upgrades for it to be done.

Posted By insaniak on 01/23/2007 7:08 PM
I suspect the problem there is simply that whoever wrote the COD book didn't realise that it was already allowed by the regular rules...

Or more likely that this COD wargear was an effort to rectify this loophole.

Posted By Augustus on 01/23/2007 2:51 PM

Fast-roping is a technique for descending down a thick rope. It is useful for deploying troops from a helicopter in places where the helicopter itself is unable or unwilling to touch down.

(Skimmers actually do deploy troops strait over vegetative canopies, cities, onto roof tops and more, strange I know, but there is even a real world parallel.)

Hope this helps it "feel" right. (Assuming aliens with rocket sled skimmer transports like Tau and Eldar still have something as Archaic as "Rope" feels right.)

I'm not a moron, I know it is possible in life, but this is a game with a set of rules, most of which are not based on REALITY!!!!!!!

My concern was that nowhere in the rules for disembarking does it say that have ropes, slides, magic peanut butter, or whatever. I know that it also doesn't say that they "don't" have these things but that brings up a whole other logic arguement which is a waste of time to argue.

Posted By Poisonrogue on 01/23/2007 9:57 PM
I just dont like logic based upon, "well it doesn't say i can't...".Thats making a lot of assumptions.

It's not a question of the rules not saying you can't, but simply a matter of following the rules that are there...

 The rules explain how troops disembark, and give specific situations where this is not allowed.

Hovering over terrain is not one of the listed situations where disembarking isn't allowed... and so you follow the normal rules for disembarking.

Which means that provided the models can be deployed within the allocated distance of the transport, they can disembark.

Posted By Poisonrogue on 01/23/2007 9:57 PM
As can be seen by the addition of the Cities of Death mods, allowing this to happen was clearly not the intent of GW or they wouldn't have made it necessary to purchase vehicle upgrades for it to be done.

That's a bit of a leap... and a perfect example of why intent arguments don't work.

My explanation for the COD equipment is no less likely than yours, given the general state of GW rules.

And it also says that you *can* do it, in the transport rules where it says that troops disembark within 2 (horizontal, tabletop) inches of the access point. This means it's not like the invisible troops thing, for which there is no rule that says you *can.*

I think the thing that bothers me the most is that skimmers can in fact enter area terrain but must test to do so and risk being wrecked. If the player had wishedto drop his troops into the middle of area terrain, I feel he should have taken a test and risked being immobilized. Its like having your cake and eating it to. It just seems like my interpretation follows the rules more stringently than yours does. I have no problem with dropping troops in terrain, but follow the less advantageous rules for doing so.

Huh? How do skimmers enter area terrain? Skimmers "ignore area terrain", but Tau Sensor Spines aside, I don't think there's a provision to allow them to enter it. Even on Tank Shock, skimmers do not need to take immobilization tests, as they're simply not affected by terrain. It's been suggested that skimmers can optionally take the immobilization test on Tank Shock into terrain, but it's not supported by the rules and is a player creation.

Once you get into CoD, it's even spelled out that skimmers may not enter area terrain, although they may fly above it. And as CoD adds multiple changes to the core 40k rules, I don't think you can apply one rule (Rappelling Lines) and ignore others (LOS changes, building mechanics, etc) just on an intent suggestion.

Actually PR, most skimmers ignore terrain, there is no testing involved to enter it, you simply cant. There just isn't a rule that suggests they need to take a test when they drop troops into terrain. Now hopefully this wont morph into a skimmers-tank-shocking-into-terrain thread.

edit - beat to it while I was typing.  lol, I did guess the tank shock argument though.  =)

my bad, i was thinking of jetbikes

EDIT: beat to it as well...

If you have rule A saying you can do action a, then you can do action a as long as you aren't breaking any other rule.

So we have a rule saying you can deploy 2" from a vehicle access point with some restrictions.

We don't have any rules that contridict that.

Therefore, you can disembark as long as you follow the restrictions given in the disembark rules, and none of those disallow dropping your passanger in terrain if you are "hovering over" the terrain.

edit:  for kicks, imagine them jumping up to hop back in from terrain when they are embarking.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 01/24/2007 5:31 AM
where it says that troops disembark within 2 (horizontal, tabletop) inches of the access point.

The rules never actually specify that the measurement is only horizontal. This is a myth brought about by the assumption that all measurement is horizontal because all of the pictures in the rulebook are top-down.

Measurement for disembarking is from the access point to the closest edge of the model's base.

It's a good thing I built my falcons and serpents so I can open the exit hatch, and short stumpy bases. I'd hate to be unable to deploy models becuase the exit was more than 2" from the table.

Posted By frenrik on 01/24/2007 12:16 PM
It's a good thing I built my falcons and serpents so I can open the exit hatch,

Makes no difference whether it opens or not. The deployment distance is measured from the access point, not the end of the door. Check the diagram on page 62 of the rulebook.

So what you are saying is if you use the provided flight stand, and it's > 2" tall, you could never use the skimmer as a transport?

If you use the provided flight stand, it's not going to be more than 2" tall...

The Falcon comes with the shorter flight stems, which are less than an inch tall.

GW's longest flight stem, including the base, is an inch and a half tall.

You know, this got me thinking. I just took out one of my DE raiders and mounted it on the big flying base they come with. It is a little over 2 inches from the running boards on the side to the table top. I guess I could cut the base stem down a bit. It isn't the size of the stem alone for a raider, the nearest part of the body that might be considered an "access point" is another half inch or so higher.

Sal.

Open-topped vehicles don't have access points. You can measure your 2" from any point on the vehicle.

Also for vertical movement the rules allow you to move up or down as far over as you can move, it's in the movement section, this essentailly allows you to be 2 inches away from a door/edge of an open topped vehicle on deployment anyway (it resolves to a basically 2D thing).

I don't realistically think anyone is measuring the diagonals from skimmer access anyway  (use the 2D footprint) and would anyone really cry foul on standard models with GW flight stand heights? Good points, but that's a bit silly isn't it?

Posted By Augustus on 01/25/2007 9:43 AM
Also for vertical movement the rules allow you to move up or down as far over as you can move, it's in the movement section, this essentailly allows you to be 2 inches away from a door/edge of an open topped vehicle on deployment anyway (it resolves to a basically 2D thing).

Whether or not you can move vertically has no bearing on measurement for other purposes. Measurement for disembarking is from the closest base edge to the access point.

Posted By Augustus on 01/25/2007 9:43 AM
I don't realistically think anyone is measuring the diagonals from skimmer access anyway  (use the 2D footprint) and would anyone really cry foul on standard models with GW flight stand heights? Good points, but that's a bit silly isn't it?

In practice, I would agree... most players I've come across just measure horizontally. But I suspect that's simply from the mistaken assumption that this is how it is supposed to be done, due to this persistent myth that measurement in 40K is all horizontal.

As for crying foul... one of the flight stands puts the Falcon exit at about the same height off the table as the rear door on a rhino. If you choose to use a taller flight stand, that's entirely your choice... so if it affects how the model performs in the game, that's on your head, not that of the player suggesting that maybe you should play by the rules.

This falls under the painful truth of Yakface's Rule #1

Using modeling to your advantage, even to include the height of flight stands, rubs me the wrong way but rarely conflicts with RAW. Of course, that brings back all the questions of swapping out or removing flight stands during play, or having cool extendo-stands with hot, hot telescoping action. *shudder*

As for crying foul... one of the flight stands puts the Falcon exit at about the same height off the table as the rear door on a rhino.

Yes, and one of them is a bit taller, but if memory serves they come with 2, standard.

If you choose to use a taller flight stand, that's entirely your choice...

No, it's how the model is packaged right? Im not talking about some kind of custom stand here >2 inches, just whats in the box.  Either could be used, the shorter or hgiher one.  Besides, even the tall one doesn't put the door over 2 inches off the ground...

so if it affects how the model performs in the game, that's on your head,

No it's not.  It's how the model is packaged, implying that someone could be playing illegally by building their models strait out of the box is pretty ridiculous.

...not that of the player suggesting that maybe you should play by the rules.

What? play by the rules by doing what?not using the taller stand?  You lost me. I think you're being pedantic here Insaniac and fabricating a controversy where none exist.

Posted By Augustus on 01/25/2007 2:00 PM
Yes, and one of them is a bit taller, but if memory serves they come with 2, standard.

Less than a quarter of an inch taller, yes.

There are two flight stand sprues, that each have two stems on them. The short one comes with the Falcon, and a longer one comes with things like Drones and Jetbikes.
 

Posted By Augustus on 01/25/2007 2:00 PM
No, it's how the model is packaged right?

The models is packaged that way because the stems are two to a sprue. It's your choice as to which you use.

But neither one would make a huge difference to deployment since, as I said, there's less than a quarter of an inch difference between them.

Posted By Augustus on 01/25/2007 2:00 PM
 Besides, even the tall one doesn't put the door over 2 inches off the ground...

Yees... that was my point earlier...

Posted By Augustus on 01/25/2007 2:00 PM
No it's not.  It's how the model is packaged, implying that someone could be playing illegally by building their models strait out of the box is pretty ridiculous.

What? Who said they were playing illegally?

You can put whatever size base you like on the model. Then you accept that the size base you put on it affects how it works in the game. It's that simple.

You don't put a flamer on your battlesuit, and then complain that it's not as effective as a plasma rifle. You made the choice when you built the model, so it's entirely up to you.

Posted By Augustus on 01/25/2007 2:00 PM
What? play by the rules by doing what?not using the taller stand?

No, 'play by the rules' by measuring correctly, rather than using a taller stand and then assuming that you should be able to measure however you want to make that stand work.

It's really very simple. Disembarking must be within two inches of the access point. If you choose to use a taller flight stand, you choose to reduce the area in which your disembarking troops can be placed.

That's your own decision. It doesn't matter how many different flight stands they pack with the model, it's your choice which of them you use... so it's entirely on your own head if your chosen base causes problems in game.

There's no controversy here. I was merely reacting to what you seemed to be suggesting, that people should make allowances within the rules for your modeling choices.

OK