PDA

View Full Version : Flyers flying OVER(not through) forests



TheWarSmith
17-02-2007, 04:54
Simply put, can they do it.

This is a ROUGH quote from the rulebook. "flyers may not land in, fly, or take off in woods."

But can they fly OVER. If they start and end their movement OUT of the woods, can they do it, or are the trees assumed to be "trees of Babil" that reach the heavens?

IronBrother
17-02-2007, 04:56
I'm pretty sure that they do "just" fly over it w/o any penalties.

TheWarSmith
17-02-2007, 05:04
My rulebook is in my car and it's freezing outside. Could somebody find the quote under flyers and post it?

::looks at Festus and Avian::

Festus
17-02-2007, 06:36
Hi

Here comes the cavalry: BRB. p.68: Flyers can move over any terrain and models without penalty, but they may not start, land or move through forests while flying. This also applies to buildings and similar terrain (agreed on by the players)

So they may move freely over woods.

Festus

TheWarSmith
17-02-2007, 06:43
See, now that's where the question lies. I argued that screamers should be able to fly over forests because opposite ruling wouldn't make much sense.

But the RAW say "cannot move THROUGH" while flying. It already cover landing and taking off, so what other situation would flying "through" cover other than flying over?

Playing a bit of devil's advocate, but I'd like to be prepared if this happens again.

Festus
17-02-2007, 06:50
Hi

Through a forest is literally *through*, ie. in between the trees.

Over is phisically above any trees, woods, scrub and undergrowth.

Where is the problem???

They may not fly through, but may fly over. Simple.

Festus

The Senate
17-02-2007, 10:33
Well if you are not charging I don't see a problem, I would think this rule though vague is just trying to stop that from happening.

Caern
17-02-2007, 15:24
Page 68 says "Flyers suffer no movement penalties for flying over scenery or crossing obstacles."

I can't find Festus' exact quote in my rulebook (I am using the pocket rulebook), I don't see anything on here using the word 'through'. In regards to woods, it has this to say "Flyers may not move, land in or take off from within a wood."

I find no prohibitions against flying overtop of a wood.

TheWarSmith
17-02-2007, 15:36
It's in there on page 68(BRB and pocket have same pages).

The inclusion of "through" is what I question though. Not because it's a comparison with the word "over", but if the intent was to have them be able to fly over, then there is NO reason to put that 3rd phrase into that sentence, because we've already covered all other flight/forest scenarios. So give me an example where a flyer is flying "through" a wood, but not taking off/landing, that he couldn't have just flown "over".

Kotobuki
17-02-2007, 16:51
Chasing a unit that fled from a charge, if the unit stops in the wood, perhaps?

That's the only example that pops into mind right now.

Festus
17-02-2007, 17:13
Hi

I can't find Festus' exact quote in my rulebook (I am using the pocket rulebook), I don't see anything on here using the word 'through'. In regards to woods, it has this to say "Flyers may not move, land in or take off from within a wood."
As you may or may not know, I can only work with the German version of the BRB, so I have to translate as I go along.


I find no prohibitions against flying overtop of a wood.This is, because there is none...

Festus

Caern
17-02-2007, 17:41
@TheWarSmith

It seems that Festus' quote includes the word 'through' only because it is from the German translation. I looked this over and over again in English, the word 'through' does not exist in our English books

TheWarSmith
17-02-2007, 17:42
Then why would they bother saying "through a wood". What flyer is going to say "no, i'd rather fly through the woods than over it".

Basically why is that phrase "through the woods" even in there. I can't imagine a situation where it would ever occur.

Caern
17-02-2007, 17:51
Aherm. What I am saying is the phrase 'Through the woods' does not exist in English. In English, it says 'within' instead, which means inside of. A flying unit cannot fly 'inside of' woodland features, it must walk.

Festus
17-02-2007, 17:52
Basically why is that phrase "through the woods" even in there. I can't imagine a situation where it would ever occur.
Maybe your imagination is not grand enough? ;)

Imagine a hut in the forest, defended by Humans, and WE Hawks want to attack - maybe they wont fit properly.

Imagine a forest and a cave in it, imagine a forest up to the roof of a Dwarven stronghold, imagine, imagine, imagine...

As you don't know other peoples terrains, you don't know their forests :D

Festus

Greyfire
18-02-2007, 04:03
What flyer is going to say "no, i'd rather fly through the woods than over it".

I know several flying demons that would have to use their ground movement to enter the woods to engage my units hiding in there.

Fly movement is for moving over things. The listed ground speed is for moving within them. As a flyer you have a choice of which to use - you just can't combine them generally. And the English hardback book on page 68, top of second column, has the example listing the flying unit landing just outside the forest on one turn and then entering the forest on the following turn using their ground movement.

I hope that helps out with the devils advocate side of things. :)

-=- Greyfire

Von Wibble
18-02-2007, 11:46
But why is there a rule about not being able to end (or start) your move hovering over a forest? The rules seem to assume that all units, flyers included, move a bit, then stop, then move again. Realistically the movement rules represent something that is somewhat more dynamic than this surely.

Flyers wouldn't just take off, fly around, then land, ready to take off again. If they have a certain role such as war machine removal, they will fly all the way to the machine before landing, if they do it even then....

FatOlaf
18-02-2007, 12:25
That is how they simplified the flying rules, I remember vaguely in the old days of 2nd ed, how flyers were a nightmare, different types, swoopers, landers, hoverers etc a trying to work out what height they were at etc.
It does seem strange that a flyer flying over a big wood has to land just before and then take off again but if it keeps it simple, then that's fine by me.
Plus would you really want to balance your dragon over your lovely plastic trees etc???

Greyfire
18-02-2007, 14:06
Flyers wouldn't just take off, fly around, then land, ready to take off again. If they have a certain role such as war machine removal, they will fly all the way to the machine before landing, if they do it even then....

I wish it worked that way, for the sake of my terradons. Per page 68, "flying represents a long swoop or glide" and "flyers start off on the ground, takes off, flies to where it wishes to go, and then lands."

No, not realistic, but that does greatly simplify play. FatOlaf is very right about the previous editions flying rules being a little cumbersome. Flying High, ah, how everyone with a flyer abused it to some degree. And the 24" fly range, surely I wasn't the only one that pulled off first turn charges with proper setup? :( The 6th and 7th edition rules forced me to use more strategy to my play so I like these rules. Just my two cents.

-=- Greyfire