Flyers Scoring, and base sizes

[Agent Purple]

BRB p80 - 'Flyers have flying bases that suspend them above the battlefield. However, distances are still measured to and from the Flyer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons and Fire Points, which all work as normal...'

 

 

Since a standard flying base suspends a model more than 3" above the battlefield, does this mean flyers can never score/contest, even in big guns or scouring?

 

What about the GK/BA Storm Raven that has a specific provision about being able to measure from the flyer's base for objective scoring purposes? Presumably codex > BRB so storm raven could still score/contest but an IG vendetta for example could not.

 

Is this correct?

 

If so, could unscrupulous cheeseball IG players hack their flying bases down to allow their hull to reach within 3" of the table, or would this be considered an 'inappropriate' base size for the purposes of the 'models and base seizes' rule on p3 of the BRB?

 

Simillarly, could those same IG players modify their basses to have staggered heights so that they can now 'stack' their vendettas on top of each other to better concentrate firepower. To me this seems like blatant cheating since the modified base allows the model to be used in a way a stock model could not, and would therefore not be considered an 'appropriate' size.

 

Thoughts?

[tvih]

Not really sure, but it's something to think about especially for flyers that have a hover mode or such. I mean, when you go to hover mode, you become a fast skimmer. As a fast skimmer, ending your movement in difficult terrain requires you to take the test. So clearly you're not flying 3"+ above the ground at that point since you're able to "hit" the terrain. Not that it ever made much sense for skimmers anyway considering they don't actually touch the ground. Though I'll state for the record that anyone trying to claim an objective with a flyer that isn't hovering is pretty silly.

 

As for staggered Vendettas... well, Vendettas in the same squadron can already shoot through each other. In separate squadrons it could be an issue. Technically I suppose nothing prevents one from shortening the "shaft", but it'd certainly be a dick move, just like "modeling for advantage" generally is.

[DarkGuard]

I agree with tvih, zooming fliers should never score, it'll be absurd if they could.

 

As for modelling to advantage, I'd agree with OP on those points, they all seem to be modelling for advantage. Like most things with GW, use the standard stuff from the kit.

[Agent Purple]

I think skimmers have the same provision about measuring to the hull though, so going into hover mode wouldn't appear to allow the vehicle to score (unless it is a Storm Raven).

[tvih]

I think skimmers have the same provision about measuring to the hull though, so going into hover mode wouldn't appear to allow the vehicle to score (unless it is a Storm Raven).

Thing of it is, the objective doesn't need to be at the lowest point of the table. It could even be on a hill, in which case even a flyer model could be in range. And as I said - the height of the base doesn't make sense as an absolute for positioning the hull, because if it did, we wouldn't have to worry about terrain tests at all, because we'd never even go near it.

[Agent Purple]

That's true, if the objective was high up enough, the flyer could potentially be within 3".

 

I don't understand your point about difficult terrain though - Where else would you measure to the hull except the hull of the model, some lower abstract point when in hover mode? There is no requirement to check distance to the difficult terrain to have to make a check, you just have to be 'in' it if you are using the skimmer rules.

 

This of course raises the question on how 'in' is defined. The flyer rules specifically state that no checks are required if the model moves 'over' difficult terrain. The skimmer rules simply state 'in,' and additionally also provide a provision that the base of the skimmer is ignored except for charging or ramming. The terrain rules in the back of the rulebook also use similar language. I don't see anything in the book that states that 'in' means that a model's base is within the boundary (which would be an awkward definition for vehicles anyways since many do not have bases).

 

Does 'over' also imply 'in'? I could see how a player could make an argument that because the hull of their flyer is no where near a patch of low lying difficult terrain (a shrubbery, for example), that a flyer (in hover mode) does not need to make a terrain check since the flyer isn't 'in' the terrain (only the base is, which we are told is ignored for all purposes except for charging or ramming).

[tvih]

My point is that if a skimmer starts or ends a move - as in, its base - in difficult/dangerous terrain, it has to roll a test, as per the rules. Which makes no sense considering its hull is well above said terrain at all times. You are hovering the base height's worth over the terrain for LoS purposes and all that, yet a small bump on the ground like a a bunch of small craters makes things difficult for you? It just doesn't make much sense. Combined with this whole capping thing it gets weirder yet, at least with a flyer rather than "normal skimmer" (i.e. Land Speeder) bases.

[Hlakir]

The Heldrake can even capture an objective at ground level, since it's wings are within 3" of the ground.

[ShinyRhino]

My point is that if a skimmer starts or ends a move - as in, its base - in difficult/dangerous terrain, it has to roll a test, as per the rules. Which makes no sense considering its hull is well above said terrain at all times. You are hovering the base height's worth over the terrain for LoS purposes and all that, yet a small bump on the ground like a a bunch of small craters makes things difficult for you? It just doesn't make much sense. Combined with this whole capping thing it gets weirder yet, at least with a flyer rather than "normal skimmer" (i.e. Land Speeder) bases.

 

You can't get caught up in justifying the physical properties of the rules. You'll go mad. If you really, REALLY want an explanation, consider the possibility that the rubbled surface of a crater is loose, and prone to having rocks and shrapnel whipped up by the skimmer's downwash column, and right into an intake or jet turbine. Maybe there's unexploded ordnance buried in the crater from a prior strike, or a wrecked vehicle that is triggered by the proximity of the skimmer or its exhaust column. Maybe that stand of trees houses some birds, and the nearby skimmer spooks them, and they fly into the jet intake.

 

We could go on all day, but the thing to remember is "rules is rules." We can't fight it.