News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)  (Read 1442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline *Striker*

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • Country: ca
  • "Oh, all you have left to fire is the flashlights"
Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« on: April 3, 2008, 05:24:47 PM »
With three chaos players in my area, there is an abundance of defilers (and brass scorpions for apocalypse).  The defiler model adds complications, as it is a walker, yet isn't supplied with a base. For walkers with bases most of these questions are not a problem, but how do you treat defiler for purposes of LOS/shooting/assault?

For the purposes of this discussion, the players often divide the defiler is often divided into two "parts."  The main body, which is the rectanglish middle which the torso sits on and the torso itself.  There is also the "extras", or, all the limbs.

LOS:  Walkers block LOS, ussually the area of their base blocks it, but as I mentioned this a moot point with the Defiler.  So what blocks LOS? Only the main body? Or do the limbs block LOS too?(this is potentially weird as many players leave their limbs free moving.)

Shooting.  When targetting the defiler, does the shooter measure to any point of the main body, or do the limbs count too?  This is especially important for ordance, which if it scatters will almost surely go off the main body, but will probably land on a limb.

Relatedly, when shooting an ordanance weapon at a walker with a base, is it a full hit only if it hits the physical model, or if the hole is over any part of the base?

Assault: When the defiler assaults or is assaulted, is it making contact with the limbs that count, or the main body?

Proximity to enemy: Example, if an opposing player has a falling back unit and tries to regroup, will the defiler stop them if the arms are within 6 inches, or does the main body have to be?

The defiler's lack of base makes it confusing sometimes and plain contradictory stuff can happen.  Example, for my LGC, they were told when they went away to a tournament that if you shoot at the defiler it is only the main body that counts, but for the purposes of assaulting it was the arms that counted (wtf?).  Has there ever been an faq/white dwarf about this?  It would be nice for it to be in writing somewhere.

Offline Agent of Change

  • Ork Boy
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • It's not how much dakka, It's who doesn't survive!
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #1 on: April 3, 2008, 05:55:53 PM »
I can't remember where we got this, but my group only counts the "chasis" for purposes of LOS blocking, Assaults, and Incoming fire/ordnance.  so like a defilers woud be it's body and the area of it's "turret" not all of it's spindly limbs.
When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles.
___________________ _______________
Blood Angels: still fighting for the Imperium and not Khorne...  Really.
___________________ _______________
Da Boyz iz wierd, Da Boyz iz mad, Da Boyz iz 'ere, WAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!
___________________ _______________
"Unprotected FAQing gave me Codex Herpes"

Offline Dr_Ruminahui

  • General | Missing: a title, and smilies
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6480
  • Country: ca
  • Inquisitor Psychologis Ruminahui
    • Some of my painted minis
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #2 on: April 3, 2008, 10:00:24 PM »
I would go with the opposite interpretation, but would be willing to play it either way.

The important thing, in my mind, is to be CONSISTENT.  If you choose the legs, do everything to legs.  If you choose the hull, likewise do everything to the hull - LOS blocking, range, assaults, you name it.

To do otherwise is giving one side an advantage. For example, if the hull counts for shooting and the legs for assault, this gives a definite advantage to the defiler's player, as he benefits from it being easier to hide, yet being closer in the assault phase than in the shooting phase (and thus easier to charge/ be charged).

Or get people to mount the thing on a base. 8)

Inquisitor Psychologis Ruminahui
The rules forum rules - no spamming, no flaming, no playing devil's advocate
------
2007: Tied for Most Valuable Non-Staff Member (with Full Metal Geneticist)
2008: Nicest Member, Strategic Excellence, Best Imperial Guard Poster, Rules Expert
2009: Best Local
2010: Nicest Member, Rules Expert

40KO IG Best painted - Storm troopers & Chimera

Offline Ghaz

  • I argue because I care
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #3 on: April 3, 2008, 11:34:38 PM »
LOS:  Walkers block LOS, ussually the area of their base blocks it, but as I mentioned this a moot point with the Defiler.  So what blocks LOS? Only the main body? Or do the limbs block LOS too?(this is potentially weird as many players leave their limbs free moving.)

There is no rule supporting your claims that only the 'area' of the walker's base blocks line of sight.  As a vehicle it blocks line of sight to it's actual dimensions just as a Land Raider or a Rhino would.
"A commander must have the courage to see his plan through,
for good or ill. Wars are won or lost when the battle-lines are
drawn
."
-The Tactica Imperium-

Offline *Striker*

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • Country: ca
  • "Oh, all you have left to fire is the flashlights"
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #4 on: April 4, 2008, 08:55:36 AM »
I beg to differ Ghaz.  The official FAQ says that when walkers shoot they measure LOS and range from the bases.  This can only imply that a walker can be targeted by it's base and that base would block LOS to "smaller" units(at the very least in the situations where unit size counts, like area terrain and closecombat, though I would say for all other circumstances as well since it is a "vehicle").  This seems to be the most correct way to do things unless you want to try and RAW it so that a walker can use it's base for shooting at an enemy but the enemy can't use the base to shoot back, or that an enemy can see the walker but at the same time can see right through it.

It's also interesting to note that distances in general are supposed to be measured from the bases of walkers.  Sadly this doesn't cover the baseless walkers (aka defiler).  You'd assume next to measure to the "hull", but what exactly counts as the hull?

Also, again, is there any clarification if an ordanance counts as full strength if it lands on a regular walker's base?

To Ruminahu: Is there even base that the defiler would fit on?:P

Offline Democratus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 987
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #5 on: April 4, 2008, 03:54:17 PM »
An old CD makes a perfect sized base for a Defiler.  Technically - a Defiler without a base is against the rules since all Walkers must have one.

At most tournaments I've seen, the players simply agree on something consistent before the battle.  My preference - if I'm not using a base - is the first "knuckle" on the legs.  It makes a reasonable sized footprint without risking silly 'leg kills'.

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #6 on: April 4, 2008, 05:43:01 PM »
Generally I prefer the idea that in absence of a base to follow the 'normal' vehicle rules as the next closest guide, in which case you use the hull for all reasons and pretty much ignore sticking out bits. Generally it works well enough, after all like a spider shooting off a leg probably won't upset it too much...

Of course thats only advice seeing as there is not 'offical' answer to this question.

I beg to differ Ghaz.  The official FAQ says that when walkers shoot they measure LOS and range from the bases.

But that isn't conclusive proof against what Ghaz was saying. This theory (called 'magic cylinder') isn't universally accepted for non-vehicles that block LOS either. In both cases they block LOS to the extent of the extent model itself but measure range and check their own LOS to and from their bases. Its two seperate conditions, on is how much they block LOS the other is what LOS they follow for shooting and being shot at, one is not automatically the same as the other.

Some people like the play an abstraction that such models block LOS across their whole base creating a 'magic cylinder' that blocks LOS that is bigger than the actual model itself... however you'll find it hard to produce evidence for such a thing being defined it the rules.
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline *Striker*

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • Country: ca
  • "Oh, all you have left to fire is the flashlights"
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #7 on: April 4, 2008, 11:36:52 PM »
Actually the rules are clear about the cylindar.

First, "A model is considored to occupy the area of it's base."(pg 6. BGB)(<--- This is a key sentence I found which supports my whole arguement now)

Model Height rules come into play pg.7  It is important to note that the faq says the max height is level three(a vehicle on a hill is not level 6.)  When using model height, level 3 object blocks LOS to all other objects.
Then, on pg 20 and 21 we are told that model heigth is used for purposes of close combat and area terrain.

By raw with these statements combined, this means that even a sentinal does indeed become a Magical cylindar of infinite heigth for blocking LOS if it is, say, in close combat(though normally true LOS is used).  Now personally when I play I don't alway follow raw and allow those infantry on the rooftops to shoot at eachother over the sentinal in combat levels below, but I would say that is conclusive proof from a raw standpoint.

Though I do think shooting off a leg would make the "spider" mind.  Vehicle immobolized anyone?

Either way, it seems to me that the original topic, that of defilers, has no well recognized answer?  This is why GW insisting pure RAW can make things just as troublesome when there are blatent holes in the rules.  What happens when there is no RAW?  Well players have to go back to RAI.
« Last Edit: April 4, 2008, 11:44:05 PM by Lt. Striker »

Offline Ghaz

  • I argue because I care
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #8 on: April 5, 2008, 12:24:07 AM »
Technically - a Defiler without a base is against the rules since all Walkers must have one.

According to what rule?

I beg to differ Ghaz.  The official FAQ says that when walkers shoot they measure LOS and range from the bases. 

Perhaps you should actually read the FAQ that you're quoting from.  It says nothing about using the base for determining line of sight.  It says that line of sight from a walker is determined from the weapon mount and the range is measured from the base.  That in no way, shape or form supports your claims that only the 'base' on a walker is counted for line of sight.  And before you go on about the patently false 'Magic Cylinder' perhaps you should read this ARTICLE from Dakka Dakka as to why you're wrong and you're using the wrong rules for line of sight as well.
« Last Edit: April 5, 2008, 12:28:23 AM by Ghaz »
"A commander must have the courage to see his plan through,
for good or ill. Wars are won or lost when the battle-lines are
drawn
."
-The Tactica Imperium-

Offline *Striker*

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • Country: ca
  • "Oh, all you have left to fire is the flashlights"
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #9 on: April 5, 2008, 09:27:04 AM »


I beg to differ Ghaz.  The official FAQ says that when walkers shoot they measure LOS and range from the bases. 

Perhaps you should actually read the FAQ that you're quoting from.  It says nothing about using the base for determining line of sight.  It says that line of sight from a walker is determined from the weapon moun
t and the range is measured from the base.  That in no way, shape or form supports your claims that only the 'base' on a walker is counted for line of sight.  And before you go on about the patently false 'Magic Cylinder' perhaps you should read this ARTICLE from Dakka Dakka as to why you're wrong and you're using the wrong rules for line of sight as well.

First, about the walkers.  Are you saying that if a player has mounted their brass scorpion on a base and he wants to fire his tailgun(forget the name but it's near the back) That he would measure LOS from the gun itself but then measure the range from the walker's base, which is a good few inches ahead of the gun and gives the gun extra range?  This is an extreme example but it helps illustrate how strange measuring LOS and range from two compeletly different points on the model is.

Second, I read that article, and it deals with "normal" LOS when it does not involve area terrain or closecombat.  It says true LOS is used for those times, and as I said I agree with that.  However, what I stated was, when the walker is in combat, the rules for height level come in, and combined with the rule "A model is considored to occupy the area of it's base."(pg.6) this does indeed say that the walker, and it's base, technically becomes a LOS blocker of infinite heigth.

Thirdly Ghaz, You've done much to come here and shout "your wrong", could you also help solve the original point of this thread? I have not seen you directly address any of the issues in the first post.  How do you treat defilers, and is there any written rules about baseless walkers?  I certainly did not expect this thread to turn into a debate over heigth issues and how to treat regular walkers, probably due to one unintentionally vague sentence in my first post("Walkers block LOS, ussually the area of their bases block it.")

Offline Ghaz

  • I argue because I care
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #10 on: April 5, 2008, 09:49:52 AM »
First, about the walkers.  Are you saying that if a player has mounted their brass scorpion on a base and he wants to fire his tailgun(forget the name but it's near the back) That he would measure LOS from the gun itself but then measure the range from the walker's base, which is a good few inches ahead of the gun and gives the gun extra range?  This is an extreme example but it helps illustrate how strange measuring LOS and range from two compeletly different points on the model is.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.  So what?  That is what the rules say to do.  Just because you may find it 'strange' doesn't change the rules.

Second, I read that article, and it deals with "normal" LOS when it does not involve area terrain or closecombat.  It says true LOS is used for those times, and as I said I agree with that.  However, what I stated was, when the walker is in combat, the rules for height level come in, and combined with the rule "A model is considored to occupy the area of it's base."(pg.6) this does indeed say that the walker, and it's base, technically becomes a LOS blocker of infinite heigth.

Again, you're trying to use a rule for line of sight that does not apply.  So you're saying that a walker will block line of sight in a normal instance to it's exact profile, yet if it's in a close combat it will block it only to the width of it's base even if it's considerably narrower than the model itself.  You don't seem to find that 'strange'?  Sorry, but that is not the rule.  The model will block line of sight up to it's height, not the base.

Thirdly Ghaz, You've done much to come here and shout "your wrong", could you also help solve the original point of this thread? I have not seen you directly address any of the issues in the first post.  How do you treat defilers, and is there any written rules about baseless walkers?  I certainly did not expect this thread to turn into a debate over heigth issues and how to treat regular walkers, probably due to one unintentionally vague sentence in my first post("Walkers block LOS, ussually the area of their bases block it.")

Cry all you want, but it is helping the original poster when I note that he's given wrong advice by people like you.  My post was perfectly acceptable and within the forum rules.  If you don't like it, then tough.  If someone is giving someone the wrong advice, I am going to says something about it.  Try leaving the moderating to the mods.
"A commander must have the courage to see his plan through,
for good or ill. Wars are won or lost when the battle-lines are
drawn
."
-The Tactica Imperium-

Offline *Striker*

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • Country: ca
  • "Oh, all you have left to fire is the flashlights"
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #11 on: April 5, 2008, 07:01:28 PM »
First, about the walkers.  Are you saying that if a player has mounted their brass scorpion on a base and he wants to fire his tailgun(forget the name but it's near the back) That he would measure LOS from the gun itself but then measure the range from the walker's base, which is a good few inches ahead of the gun and gives the gun extra range?  This is an extreme example but it helps illustrate how strange measuring LOS and range from two completely different points on the model is.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.  So what?  That is what the rules say to do.  Just because you may find it 'strange' doesn't change the rules.

Second, I read that article, and it deals with "normal" LOS when it does not involve area terrain or closecombat.  It says true LOS is used for those times, and as I said I agree with that.  However, what I stated was, when the walker is in combat, the rules for height level come in, and combined with the rule "A model is considered to occupy the area of it's base."(pg.6) this does indeed say that the walker, and it's base, technically becomes a LOS blocker of infinite heigth.

Again, you're trying to use a rule for line of sight that does not apply.  So you're saying that a walker will block line of sight in a normal instance to it's exact profile, yet if it's in a close combat it will block it only to the width of it's base even if it's considerably narrower than the model itself.  You don't seem to find that 'strange'?  Sorry, but that is not the rule.  The model will block line of sight up to it's height, not the base.

Thirdly Ghaz, You've done much to come here and shout "your wrong", could you also help solve the original point of this thread? I have not seen you directly address any of the issues in the first post.  How do you treat defilers, and is there any written rules about baseless walkers?  I certainly did not expect this thread to turn into a debate over heigth issues and how to treat regular walkers, probably due to one unintentionally vague sentence in my first post("Walkers block LOS, usually the area of their bases block it.")

Cry all you want, but it is helping the original poster when I note that he's given wrong advice by people like you.  My post was perfectly acceptable and within the forum rules.  If you don't like it, then tough.  If someone is giving someone the wrong advice, I am going to says something about it.  Try leaving the moderating to the mods.

On the first point: It seems by RAW you are correct about range and LOS for weapons on walkers.  I hope you at least understand that this was a hard interpertation to swallow at first. 

On the second point:  Ghaz I have proven my point about rules for walkers in close combat with the written rules just like you proved your argument for the first point.  It doesn't make sense but it is RAW.  The walker is considered to occupy the area of it's base and when close combat heigth rules come in, where level 3 "large" targets are as high as you can be, it does become the base shaped cylinder of LOS blocking.  If you have evidence which contradicts what I have put forward then by all means post it instead of just "crying" "your wrong".

3. On the third point, are you aware that the original poster is me!?  And I'm not so sure that your posts are "perfectly acceptable" as they are coming dangerously close to categories of "rules trolling" and "off topic".  It seems to me all you have done is come in to this discussion, point your finger at people saying "you are wrong!", and not address the original issue at all.  It would be much more constructive if you posted with a more "friendly" attitude and address the topic at hand, which I can hardly remember anymore because of this rules debate.

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #12 on: April 5, 2008, 08:13:34 PM »
On the second point:  Ghaz I have proven my point about rules for walkers in close combat with the written rules just like you proved your argument for the first point.  It doesn't make sense but it is RAW.  The walker is considered to occupy the area of it's base and when close combat heigth rules come in, where level 3 "large" targets are as high as you can be, it does become the base shaped cylinder of LOS blocking.  If you have evidence which contradicts what I have put forward then by all means post it instead of just "crying" "your wrong".

The question of how high you need to be to fire over a combat in such situations isn't one that 40K manages very well. For instance infantry on a hill being played as WYSIWYG can't fire at another unit of infantry on a similar hill if theres a combat in the valley between them...

In such instances (including the walkers example you made) it could be claimed that the air above whatever it is magically blocks LOS to an infinate height but frankly theres little point. Its a curious loophole that occours in certian conditions and is generally ignored, but the fact that it occours doesn't alter the general case, that infinately tall base sized LOS blocking cylinders aren't to be used in normal play.

Which being the point you where suggesting, means it was wrong and it was entirely fair of Ghaz to say so. People come to this forum for the actual answers to questions, if we lied to people to keep them happy that would somewhat defeat the point.

Which leads me to your third part, if you feel that a post treats you unfairly click 'Report to Moderator' at the bottom of the post, write in why you feel the post is unreasonable and a mod will check it and apply rules if needs be.
Trying to tell people off yourself simply doesn't work, mostly because its clear that you're trying to huff and puff to make Ghaz go away (this won't work, trust me ;)) because while disagreeing with you in a somewhat curt manner might not make you very happy its well within the forum rules. Asides from which harping on about your orginal topic doesn't seem that great a tactic either, its clear that theres no offical way of dealing with it and you've been given suggestions on both sides of the 'what counts' case and as such the orginal topic is (very unlikely) to go much further.

Of course, I'm not a moderator either so you're perfectly entitled to ignore everything I've said, but you might want to consider this friendly advice.
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline jawmonkey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3053
  • Country: us
  • My disgust for you is only matched by my rage.
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #13 on: April 5, 2008, 08:24:59 PM »
at my LGS we measure shooting from the barrel (of questionable vehicles) and determine LOS issues by true LOS; if the thing is in the way between the target and shooter...

but my player's have been quoted as saying at tournaments, "sure you can use a soda can as a drop pod if you want, he real models are too expensive" and "wow, I can't believe you even bothered to paint this many models for this tournament" pretty easy going out here.
Throwing feces in the eye of insolence.

Check out my terrain tutorial!, New chapter; plasticard watch tower added 11-6-11!

Also,examples of my many armies;  pics of all sorts of huge commissions

Offline Ghaz

  • I argue because I care
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #14 on: April 5, 2008, 08:30:10 PM »
On the second point:  Ghaz I have proven my point about rules for walkers in close combat with the written rules just like you proved your argument for the first point.  It doesn't make sense but it is RAW.  The walker is considered to occupy the area of it's base and when close combat heigth rules come in, where level 3 "large" targets are as high as you can be, it does become the base shaped cylinder of LOS blocking.  If you have evidence which contradicts what I have put forward then by all means post it instead of just "crying" "your wrong".

And here you are crying again, using a rule that has nothing to do with line of sight.  Just because a model occupies an area doesn't mean that it's the only 'area' of the model that blocks line of sight.  Actually provide a rule that says a part of a vehicle model outside of it's base doesn't block line of sight.  A vehicle model blocks line of sight whether it's over it's base or not.  The rule you keep quoting has nothing to do with line of sight.  If you were to actually read the rest of the sentence instead of stopping at the first comma to try and support your claims then you would see that the reference is in regards to measurement and has nothing to do with line of sight at all.  The line of sight rules are on page 20, not page 7.


On the third point, are you aware that the original poster is me!?  And I'm not so sure that your posts are "perfectly acceptable" as they are coming dangerously close to categories of "rules trolling" and "off topic".  It seems to me all you have done is come in to this discussion, point your finger at people saying "you are wrong!", and not address the original issue at all.  It would be much more constructive if you posted with a more "friendly" attitude and address the topic at hand, which I can hardly remember anymore because of this rules debate.
Again, trying to play moderator I see.  And on top of that, you're doing exactly what you're acusing me of doing making yourself a hypocrite as well.  If you knew what blocked LOS, they why did you even bother to ask the question in the first place if all you were going to do was stick your fingers in your ears when you were told that you were wrong.  Seems to me that you're the one whose trolling as well, since all you did was start a thread to start an argument.
"A commander must have the courage to see his plan through,
for good or ill. Wars are won or lost when the battle-lines are
drawn
."
-The Tactica Imperium-

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Walkers without bases(IE: Defiler)
« Reply #15 on: April 5, 2008, 10:26:22 PM »
enough
*click*
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

 


Powered by EzPortal