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.

To make it blunt, does a Fast Skimmer tank shocking into cover, invoke a dangerous terrain test?

The BGB states that Skimmers always ignore difficult terrain, but it neglects to mention anything about skimmers tank shocking in the tank shocking section. We've in the past house ruled it to saying that they do, but I wanted other peoples perspective on the situation.

Skimmers cannot enter difficult terrain. This is made clear on the summary chart in the back of the rulebook.

However, there isn't any conflict in the rules with a skimmer moving over a unit and still tank shocking it, so they can. So in short, by the RAW a skimmer can fly over units and still tank shock them, including flying over a unit in cover.

It all comes down to the words....

Pg 61 "... Skimmers ignore terrain altogether when they move and can even end their move hovering over difficult or impassable terrain (but not over other models).

Pg 70 "If the tank has sufficient movement to get into contact with the unit..."
"... and individual would end up under the underneath the vehicle..."

Skimmers can't enter difficult terrain. They just don't. If a model is in difficult terrain and a skimmer can't enter it, how can the skimmer "get into contact with" that unit. However Tank shocking is the one instance where a tank may occupy the same place as an infantry model. A skimmer tank is technically over the unit during a tankshock, and an individual would technically end up under the skimming tank, but is it actually in contact with it? Over something is not the same as touching, or is it? Since 40K has no real third dimension, its hard to say.

So its pretty much your call. I think the critical wording is "contact with the unit". I personally offer up the choice (if there is not time to debate it) that they can tankshock but have to make dangerious terrain checks to do so, or they can't tanks shock at all.

It may not be RAW, but I think its fair and a lot better than flipping a coin.

If a model is in difficult terrain and a skimmer can't enter it, how can the skimmer "get into contact with" that unit.

"Firsty, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base. . . . For models without a base (usually vehicles) use the model's hull/main body instead."--BGB pg 6

That's how. It doesn't matter if the skimmer isn't "really in the terrain." Do its limits bump up against the limits of any model in the unit? Yes? Then it has contacted them.

Just a little side note-
the exception to the rule
tau tanks with the sensor spine upgrades can enter terrain even tough they are skimmers.

Interesting perspectives. Thanks guys.

To play some devil's advocate:

Since a skimmer cannot end its move hovering over models, then can a skimmer actually contact the models in difficult terrain? This would degenerate into saying "If the skimmer could move to the area in that piece of difficult terrain that the enemy unit was occupying, then that unit would be tank shocked" to which that answer is "True, but the skimmer can't can't, so the unit isn't..."

We house rule it where I play to say that the skimmer must take a dangerous terrain check to tank shock in this case or may not move onto that location in difficult terrain, but I won't argue this is anything other than a house rule.

Daydream

Daydream wrote:Since a skimmer cannot end its move hovering over models, then can a skimmer actually contact the models in difficult terrain?

Whether or not it can hover over models isn't an issue... Tank Shock is an exception to the normal movement rules, and the end result isn't really the skimmer hovering over the unit, as any models that would wind up underneath it are moved.

The crux of it is simply whether or not the skimmer has sufficient movement to contact the unit.

You could argue that the skimmer doesn't need to actually contact the unit... it just needs to have sufficient movement to do so. In which case, moving above the terrain would be sufficient, as models would wind up underneath the skimmer.

Of course, it could also be argued that, despite the actual distance involved, the simply fact that skimmers can't enter the terrain means that the skimmer doesn't have sufficient movement to contact the unit (ie: no matter how far it can move, it will never be able to move far enough to contact the unit, as the unit is in a position that the skimmer can not reach) and therefore simply hovering above the terrain would not constitute a tank shock.


So I'm tempted to go with 'Nope, can't do it' as a house rule, but would be willing to go either way, as with any similar grey area.

In essence the rules state that irregardless of terrain in the way, you must tank shock enemy units along your flight path.

Essentially the only thing that stops skimmers tank shocking are enemy armored vehicles with superior armor, including wrecks.

If you could pick and choose what you shocked, you could fly over higher AV targets but you can't.

Hope that helps some.

Daydream:

Since a skimmer cannot end its move hovering over models, then can a skimmer actually contact the models in difficult terrain?

If that stops a Falcon from tankshocking, then it also stops all tankshocking. No model may ordinarily end a move occupying the same space as another model. A Russ is under exactly the same restrictions as a Falcon in that respect.

insaniak:

Of course, it could also be argued that, despite the actual distance involved, the simply fact that skimmers can't enter the terrain means that the skimmer doesn't have sufficient movement to contact the unit (ie: no matter how far it can move, it will never be able to move far enough to contact the unit, as the unit is in a position that the skimmer can not reach) and therefore simply hovering above the terrain would not constitute a tank shock.

Bizarre argument. Why should you have to "enter" terrain to "contact" a model that is inside it?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Bizarre argument. Why should you have to "enter" terrain to "contact" a model that is inside it?

Er... because in order to contact the model, you need to get into contact with it... ?

And you need to enter the terrain to do this. . . why exactly?

Realise, too, that by your reasoning, a skimmer or jetbike hovering above terrain could never be assaulted.

As if Falcons need the help. Now infantry can't even hide in buildings or woods. In fact, nowhere on the table is safe as they can fly over tanks they can't shock and hit anything else in front or behind. I think I have my next army to build...

Krak_kirby wrote:As if Falcons need the help. Now infantry can't even hide in buildings or woods. In fact, nowhere on the table is safe as they can fly over tanks they can't shock and hit anything else in front or behind. I think I have my next army to build...

Re-read the tank shock rules please.

Stelek wrote:

Krak_kirby wrote:As if Falcons need the help. Now infantry can't even hide in buildings or woods. In fact, nowhere on the table is safe as they can fly over tanks they can't shock and hit anything else in front or behind. I think I have my next army to build...

Re-read the tank shock rules please.

Ok, I've read the tank shock rules. What's your point?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:And you need to enter the terrain to do this. . . why exactly?

Realise, too, that by your reasoning, a skimmer or jetbike hovering above terrain could never be assaulted.

The rulebook mentions that "enemy troops can attack skimmers in the assault phase, as close combat takes into account close range shooting and grenade lobbing as well as hand to hand combat".

That passage reminds me of an old world war II movie, I don't remember the name, where a bunch of paratroopers or commandos ambushed an armored vehicle by running alongside the road in a ditch and tossing grenades at the tracks. I always liked that scene...

tegeus-Cromis wrote:And you need to enter the terrain to do this. . . why exactly?

You're kidding, right?

If a table is inside the house, and I want to smack my head against it, I need to enter the house to do so. I can't smack my head against the table from outside, because the table is inside and I'm outside.

Seriously, it's not rocket science.

Realise, too, that by your reasoning, a skimmer or jetbike hovering above terrain could never be assaulted.

And that's a problem because...?



(Of course, by the rules as they currently stand, a skimmer can never be assaulted, as it's impossible to get the base of a model in contact with the hull of the skimmer... but that's the result of GW not thinking through their FAQ answers fully, rather than anything intentional...)

You read them again?

See the part about enemy vehicles with higher Armor values stopping a tank shock?

Nowhere in the rules does it say you can hop, skip, and jump your way when tank shocking. That's for regular movement, but when you tank shock it's a all or nothing affair--you tank shock EVERY unit in your path.

When you hit impassable terrain or a vehicle you can't force aside, you stop.

That was my point.

The opponent I played at the Ard Boyz finals claimed that he could hop enemy vehicles. If he can skim over difficult terrain, and is normally allowed to move over enemy models, I felt the weight of the rules backed up his argument. In the end I won, but it was still a close run thing, and one failed morale test would have drawn the game or worse.

I see your point, Stelek, but I'll bet in a competitive tournament I'll end up with a 50/50 chance with the judge, or a dice roll to decide the issue.

Oh I know.

Browbeat them with the tank shock rules.

It wouldn't mention vehicles stopping tank shock and not mention skimmers as an exception when there are multiple exceptions throughout the rules for moving and shooting skimmers.

Nothing in there about tank shock, which isn't regular movement.

I'm sure that genius you played would have whined like a schoolgirl losing her taffy if he'd been in your shoes.

insaniak:

You're kidding, right?

If a table is inside the house, and I want to smack my head against it, I need to enter the house to do so. I can't smack my head against the table from outside, because the table is inside and I'm outside.

Seriously, it's not rocket science.

I don't see what this has to do with the question. If a model's base is touching another model's base, then the two models are in contact, even if one of them is "inside terrain" and the other is "physically-inside-but-in-game-terms-really-hovering-over-it."

And that's a problem because...?

Only because no one I've met has ever played it this way.

(Of course, by the rules as they currently stand, a skimmer can never be assaulted, as it's impossible to get the base of a model in contact with the hull of the skimmer... but that's the result of GW not thinking through their FAQ answers fully, rather than anything intentional...)

Except that "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base [or hull/main body]." You don't need to contact the hull itself, just the limit of the area it is considered to occupy.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:If a model's base is touching another model's base, then the two models are in contact, even if one of them is "inside terrain" and the other is "physically-inside-but-in-game-terms-really-hovering-over-it."

Except that if the first model is on the ground, and the second model is sitting on top of a tree, their bases aren't touching.

A skimmer sitting on top of terrain is not at ground level (unless you're using a flat template to represent your terrain), and so can not possibly be in base contact with a model that is at ground level.

Except that "a model is considered to occupy the area of its base [or hull/main body].

How does that help you to contact a model that is 6 inches up on top of a tree? The base of the model at ground level is at ground level, so occupying the area of it does nothing more than define its footprint at ground level. It doesn't magically make the base extend into the air around the model, aside from when drawing LOS through Area Terrain or a close combat.

You don't need to contact the hull itself, just the limit of the area it is considered to occupy.

The assault rules disagree. You get into close combat by moving into base contact. Not contact with the empty air around, underneath, or above the model.

Krak_kirby wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:And you need to enter the terrain to do this. . . why exactly?

Realise, too, that by your reasoning, a skimmer or jetbike hovering above terrain could never be assaulted.

The rulebook mentions that "enemy troops can attack skimmers in the assault phase, as close combat takes into account close range shooting and grenade lobbing as well as hand to hand combat".

That passage reminds me of an old world war II movie, I don't remember the name, where a bunch of paratroopers or commandos ambushed an armored vehicle by running alongside the road in a ditch and tossing grenades at the tracks. I always liked that scene...

If that's the case, then a Powerfist/Claw/Thunderhammer/etc... should never be able to be used against skimmers. Not saying I'd ever pull that on anyone, just pointing out another seemingly huge issue that could come from the poor skimmer rules.

just pointing out another seemingly huge issue that could come from the poor skimmer rules.

...or just over analyzing the rules. In the game, there are many factors that are either exagerated or glossed over that would make many of the things discussed impossible in real life ( I know, RL comparisons vs a game stat ) . Weapons ranges, limitations on who can shoot what and when, etc.

Observing this discussion, I thought of something related: when calculating LOS to and from a skimmer, do you take into account that the skimmer is "up there", or do you measure a straight line to and from?

Unless a model has a rule that removes it from the board (swooping hawks Skyleap, or Falcons Sky-hunters for example), one assumes that the target is pretty close to the ground. And, with tank shock, one must assume that the skimmer is damn near on the ground to threaten foot troops. By saying that skimmers or regular tanks cannot shock units in terrain you run the risk of having every troop digging in in the nearest cover for the length of the game. If you say that terrain prevents units from being shocked by skimmers, then you have to modify the assault rules to state that skimmers cannot be assaulted OR that skimmers can only be assaulted by guns and grenades ( throw out those PF's and swords). But, if we allow skimmers to tankshock units in cover, I'd say that the troops should get a modifier to their morale check ( "no one would be crazy enough to try flying through that!" ) . Further, I think a little common sense on the part of the players is needed when it comes to types of cover a skimmer can shock through. A field of trees? Perhaps. A convoluted maze that was once a building? Maybe not. Especially if the troops are behind the ruined walls.


Gaming, like movies, requires us to 'suspend our disbelief' else the entertainment value is lost. Or do we really think that bolters can only fire out to 144 feet? That is presuming that 1" = 6' scale

Laserbait wrote:Observing this discussion, I thought of something related: when calculating LOS to and from a skimmer, do you take into account that the skimmer is "up there", or do you measure a straight line to and from?

You measure to the hull of the vehicle. If the vehicle is sitting 2" above the table on a flight stem, then you will be measuring to a point 2" above the table... because that's where the vehicle's hull is. If the vehicle is sitting 6" above the table on top of some trees, then that is likewise where you will be measuring to.

You do need to bear in mind that many (IMO, all the best) woods and other area terrain templates have mobile pieces that allow entering models to rest properly on the table surface, by moving the actual trees out of the way while leaving the template on the table to still mark the bounds properly. This has the nice benefits of allowing precise model placement and not having to precariously balance your stuff on top of trees.

In that case, it's usually the case that a skimmer would be contacting the models inside during a tank shock just as it would in other terrain or on the open table.

Mannahnin wrote:This has the nice benefits of allowing precise model placement and not having to precariously balance your stuff on top of trees.

While I agree that balancing your models on terrain can be a little hair-raising at times, I'm not sure that moving the trees out of the way to place the skimmer on the table really qualifies as precise model placement. The skimmer is supposed to be hovering above the terrain, so moving the terrain out of the way and placing the model on the table is not placing the model in its precise position at all.

I wouldn't argue the point too hard in game, since the rules don't really handle it in any sort of sufficient way... As it stands, a forest using actual model trees would have the skimmer higher than the models, while a forest made from a circle of felt sees the skimmer remain at table level. So if an opponent insisted on placing the skimmer on the table instead of on the terrain, I'd probably let it fly.

But it would be nice if GW at some point examined the rules for skimmers and decided to actually finish writing them.

Most infantry bases are what? 1/4" tall or so.

Therefore if the hull is even 1/2" off the ground, like if he had a flight stand, then you could never get in base to base contact on flat ground.

I already pointed that out...

The simple fact is that the rules for skimmers are poorly thought out and incomplete.

Does anyone know if an answer to this question will appear in the Adepticon faq?

Maybe a cross-post to their 'rules questions we need to answer' thread is in order.