• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS Flying Rules...

Same philosophy as modeling a 3 foot long spear and using it to get a level 1 charge off. You have to pay for the movement of the spear. It's so ridiculously stupid to measure from parts of the model
 
The deeper one digs into the details the sillier this gets...

...no wonder all the serious WFB players anywhere near me went KoW and didn't look back.
 
As much as I'd want flying rules that are a bit better (and some others agree) they are hardly a problem. Most players I know just settled for "flying means moving normally but ignoring terrain" and that's it. Everyone plays base2base measurement anyway.
Even most of the former WHFB players that were AoS haters play it in the meantime, and most of those I talked to now admit that after the GHB and the first battletomes got much better. Some even say they like most of the changes in the game itself, they are just sad about the lore and ignore parts of it. :)
 
m0gstar said:
Same philosophy as modeling a 3 foot long spear and using it to get a level 1 charge off. You have to pay for the movement of the spear. It's so ridiculously stupid to measure from parts of the model
Click to expand...

I don't understand the bolded words. Explain more please?

I have zero playing XP with AoS. Have Read the rules a couple of times. (I don't remember anything about paying extra movement for weapons.)
 
I'll illustrate in a bit. Basically if you measure from. The carnosaur model, no part of the model can move further than it's mo characteristic, so swinging the spear around to reach an enemy uses part of your movement in the rules as written. But as others have mentioned, I and about 99% of aos players just measure from the base
 
So movement, as written, is done from parts of the model. in the picture below the tip of the spear is used. so no part of the model can move more than the movement characteristic. as shown below.

Stupid measuring in AoS.jpg

Now for the really really stupid one. In this example, it's to show that the movement with a ridiculous model is the same. In this case, the carnosaur has a spear that is 2.5ft long and how he must move. If you measure from the spear tip, the model cannot move at all and can just rotate.

This is why measuring from base to base is so much better.

More stupid Aos movement.jpg
 
According to the official FAQ vertical movement is free for flying models, "the vertical distance is not included when working out how far they have moved" Page 3.

The rules also allow you to proxy where your base is, for example when climbing (page 3 of FAQ). Thus if your melee ground model is 8 inches up a cliff I can't attack it, measuring base to base, since the base is proxied 8 inches into the air. In the same way, a flying unit can proxy its base to be also be in the air.

However, for a flying melee unit to attack it must get to within 1 inch - it must therefore descend and make itself vulnerable to melee attacks from the opponent during the combat phase. If I have a ranged flying unit, it seems absurd to me and also against the confirmed FAQ published only 2 months ago that a unit of say four legged cats can assault my airborne frigate!

If a player chooses to keep airborne units out of melee range that should be fine. The winner is still the person that can claim objectives. It would be difficult to claim objectives while remaining totally ariborne.
 
Gareth Evans said:
...it seems absurd to me and also against the confirmed FAQ published only 2 months ago that a unit of say four legged cats can assault my airborne frigate...
Click to expand...
I can only agree ^ with this. :rolleyes:

I was using the word "sillier" earlier in this thread.. ..but "absurd" works for me also. :cool:
 
m0gstar said:
So movement, as written, is done from parts of the model. in the picture below the tip of the spear is used. so no part of the model can move more than the movement characteristic. as shown below.

View attachment 34435

Now for the really really stupid one. In this example, it's to show that the movement with a ridiculous model is the same. In this case, the carnosaur has a spear that is 2.5ft long and how he must move. If you measure from the spear tip, the model cannot move at all and can just rotate.

This is why measuring from base to base is so much better.

View attachment 34436
Click to expand...
That was fascinating.

[As Long As We're Down the Rabbit Hole]
What happens if the Carno rotates its spear to vertical (anybody that would do this would magnetize the spear and articulate it) first? Can the Carno move in a more normal fashion? Could the spear be rotated down at the end?
[/Rabbit Hole]

Besides, I thought AoS models got a free pivot / free facing at the end of their move anyway.. ..kinda the whole reason for round bases.
 
Has anyone checked out the new 40K rules on flying? It would appear that AoS was used as a kind of testing gound. In 40K flying means melee cannot attack you, but you cannot block or contest areas of the map - to do this you must go into "hover" mode. It strikes me that people play AoS as if the units are always in "hover" mode.
 
Gareth Evans said:
Has anyone checked out the new 40K rules on flying? It would appear that AoS was used as a kind of testing gound. In 40K flying means melee cannot attack you, but you cannot block or contest areas of the map - to do this you must go into "hover" mode. It strikes me that people play AoS as if the units are always in "hover" mode.
Click to expand...
Space Marines have SAMs in 40K.

Apart from the Sigmarines, what are the other armies supposed to do about flying gunboats?
 
Wood Elves could shoot them.
But yeah that's a problem. 40K rules are made for a game where basically everyone has some good shooting and/or flyers of their own.
That wouldn't be applicable to AoS.
 
Gareth Evans said:
According to the official FAQ vertical movement is free for flying models, "the vertical distance is not included when working out how far they have moved" Page 3.

The rules also allow you to proxy where your base is, for example when climbing (page 3 of FAQ). Thus if your melee ground model is 8 inches up a cliff I can't attack it, measuring base to base, since the base is proxied 8 inches into the air. In the same way, a flying unit can proxy its base to be also be in the air.

However, for a flying melee unit to attack it must get to within 1 inch - it must therefore descend and make itself vulnerable to melee attacks from the opponent during the combat phase. If I have a ranged flying unit, it seems absurd to me and also against the confirmed FAQ published only 2 months ago that a unit of say four legged cats can assault my airborne frigate!

If a player chooses to keep airborne units out of melee range that should be fine. The winner is still the person that can claim objectives. It would be difficult to claim objectives while remaining totally ariborne.
Click to expand...


If only GW was more clear on this, instead of leaving us to extrapolate things from various FAQs... :banghead:

After all, it's just one of the main features of flying models, it's a thing that happens so rarely! :meh:
 
Well, I don't know the rules very well, but from a common sense perspective I always imagined it like this (I come from 40k): You can shoot at a flier if it is within range of your..shooting weapon. You can't melee it, though, unless you can fly. Unless it comes down to the ground (ripperdactyl), then it can be shot and melee'd and is not considered flying. So Ripperdactyls can fight one another in the air in a mirror match, or on the ground if they both land, but if one lands and one is flying and they have no ranged they can't hurt one another. Unless they have spears, then the flying on can throw spears on the grounded one, and the grounded one can throw spears at the flying one. Or shoot it with a bolter.......

(rummages through my 40k bits) Dinosaurs with guns? Why not?
 
The rules in discussion here would just make the game more complicated imo. And by more complicated I do not mean more interesting. I mean boring rules getting in the way of the flow and introducing lots of discussion of what flew, when and how high :p
 
Seraphage said:
The rules in discussion here would just make the game more complicated imo. And by more complicated I do not mean more interesting. I mean boring rules getting in the way of the flow and introducing lots of discussion of what flew, when and how high :p
Click to expand...

If it has the flying keyword that's how you know.
 
Krissey said:
...rummages through my 40k bits) Dinosaurs with guns? Why not?
Click to expand...
I did write a short story where certain Kroxigors had the equivalent of Bazookas...

...they were an anti-ship weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top