Question RE: Gun Emplacements and Dreadnoughts - Page 3 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Rules Discussion Post any Warhammer 40k rules queries and discussions here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 23 (permalink) Old 12-16-12, 04:49 AM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaivex View Post
Chariots, like skimmers have bases.
The point is you don't have to be in base contact with it to be in base contact

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaivex View Post
These are fortifications, not vehicles.
The point is you don't have to have a base to be in base contact

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaivex View Post
There indeed is such a thing as being in contact, but not base contact. It is covered under ramming, because tanks do not have bases and thus can not be in base contact.

"...if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle..."
The point is you don't have to be in base contact with it to be in base contact
Magpie_Oz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 23 (permalink) Old 12-16-12, 05:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Klaivex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 502
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magpie_Oz View Post
The point is you don't have to have a base to be in base contact
This i can't refute, but it seems to have been a poor choice of wording in general as they had to FAQ how the aegis is deployed, namely "end to end" as it is a more accurate description.
I personally would count this more as an exception than the rule, as all other examples of base contact require a base but again it does say base contact so I suppose in some cases that is possible.
Klaivex is offline  
post #23 of 23 (permalink) Old 12-16-12, 10:23 AM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

I certainly agree that the consistency of language in the 40k rule book needs a LOT of work. Particularly in the casual usage of such terms in the absence of a glossary.

That is why things like this come up all the time, mind you if people are discussing things it's far better advertising than if they all agree don't you think?
Magpie_Oz is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Rules Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome