http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/15.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
To go over the salient points, and pages of rules:

Page 3 of the rulebook says that a model must be played on the base it comes with, unless you have specific opponent permission to do otherwise.

Page 71 of the rulebook tells us that for purposes of measurements, you disregard the base, and measure to/from the hull. It also tells us that the only time you remove the base from a skimmer is when it is immobilized or wrecked.

So, given these rules, you'll find that a valkyrie cannot come within 3" of most ground-level objectives in order to contest them and/or score with troops inside. You will also find that you can't disembark or embark from a valkyrie because you cannot place troops within 2" of its access points.

Many people seem to think that this makes the Valkyrie unplayable if you actually follow the rules. I'm of the opinion that all other vehicles suffer from certain disadvantages due to height and placement of access points (ever try to set up a charge out of a waveserpent?) and that valkyries should be no different, but with some caveats.

For example, a rhino full of troops could not capture an objective placed at the top of a 6" ruins, so why should troops in the valkyrie be able to capture an objective on ground level?

As far as embarking/disembarking goes... well yes, troops can do a grav-chute insertion, but the idea that you have a transport vehicle that can rarely ever pick up troops does seem ridiculout to me.

So, how are [i]you[/i] going to play your valkyries?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736184.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736184.page GMT
And your point about the rhino is spot on, it can't capture 6" up, so a Valk Cannot Capture 6" down]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736191.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736191.page GMT GW....... I voted the second option

edit: I have since changed my mind based on some things that have been pointed out in this thread. I don't think the model interacts properly with the rules almost at all as intended so I'd always try to work something out before the game with my opponent, with the intent be to make it a playable model to the intent in the IG codex.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736261.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736261.page GMT WD, so why would their '[i]play tests[/i]' be any different?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736276.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736276.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736292.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736292.page GMT IG player is an ass, abuses rules (off the top of my head, meshing squads for cover saves for both is the only I can think of), etc, my take on the issue may suffer a momentary change of heart.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736295.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736295.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736328.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736328.page GMT I'd classify it closer to the Falcon, but that's unimportant. While both are flying transports with decent/excellent offensive capabilities, the difference is in the bases. The Wave Serpent doesn't come with a ten inch tall base. That in turn raises major questions in how to measure to the thing. Do we follow the strictest RaW argument? Or do we allow some slack for this oversight?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736343.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736343.page GMT
That's if your opponent is someone who has ever pulled the "you absolutely must use RAW even though it is clearly broken" stuff. For anyone else that you would enjoy a friendly game with, I don't mind them embarking/disembarking from the base.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736351.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736351.page GMT
A rhino is a tank transport with guns on it. It is the same as a land raider.

See, that argument doesn't really work, because for better or worse, vehicles are defined by their models.

Both a land raider and a rhino have 3 access points. As far as the written rules are concerned these access points can be anywhere on the vehicle. But since the vehicles are pretty clearly defined by the models, the rhino has two side doors, and one in the rear. A land raider has one in front and two on the sides.

Because of this, the dimensions of a vehicle's model have a direct impact on the rules. Trying to claim that a valkyrie and a wave serpent should play exactly the same doesn't really work well.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736372.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736372.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736376.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736376.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736392.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736392.page GMT LoS to your own units, unlike Wave Serpents. Call it a blessing. It is also a great model with fluffy uber-cheese. One handicap does not a broken unit make.

That and think how cool it will be when Valks fly in and drop off units of veterans on top of a building.

As an appendum, Valks and Wave Serpents should play the same because they both are the same, just like Rhinos and Land Raiders are the same. Other than their differing codex rules, of course.

And yes, all you need to know is the RaW. That is why it is called the RULES as WRITTEN. It is in the name.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736434.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736434.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736454.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736454.page GMT
Wouldn't a flying transport either a) land completely to disembark or b) do a grav chute insertion?

It seems only skimmers should be able to disembark safely at slower speeds from a fluff viewpoint.

Anyway I say this purely from a fluff perspective with no regard to gameplay balance. It really is amazing GW didn't discover all this during playtesting. Since the Valkyrie was originally a flier they should of put some more effort into its rules. Like the ability to land and take off for example.

With regards to its other issues, some of them are advantages and others disadvantages. For example having to measure everything to it on an angle decreases range a bit (can hurt melta weapons looking for that half range). Also it can only be assaulted by its base which is smaller than its hull. Maybe these advantages offset some of the disadvantages.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736455.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736455.page GMT
I'm taking willydstyle's arguement to my local GW this week.
One of the workers there is a real RAWophile and is in the process of doing an air cav company.

I'll be bracing for Epic Win.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736514.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736514.page GMT
To go over the salient points, and pages of rules:
......


As far as embarking/disembarking goes... well yes, troops can do a grav-chute insertion, but the idea that you have a transport vehicle that can rarely ever pick up troops does seem ridiculout to me.

So, how are [i]you[/i] going to play your valkyries?[/quote]

Troops can extract the same way we actually do now when the situation does not lend itself to putting the craft on the ground.

STABO [url]http://www.vietnamgear.com/kit.aspx?kit=661[/url] has been around since Viet Nam and is widely used by some forces.

Picture of the CISO version [url]http://www.modernforces.com/img/new_site/stabo_contents_450.jpg[/url]

Picture of the Natrick Labs version [url]http://s444.photobucket.com/albums/qq161/bonnettm/?action=view¤t=b.jpg[/url] Still have that one in my attic somewhere ...

Flying without a chute....
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK9kGMc3jGw&feature=related[/url]

Since we been doing this since Vietnam I am sure the Emperor and his Stormies can do it....

For that matter...the Fulton system is not as widely used but by 40k times. For those not familiar with this system think the movie "The Green Berets" or watch this video .[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PErEsNhDmo8&feature=PlayList&p=9C0741286C81F8F3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10[/url]


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736590.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736590.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736615.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736615.page GMT RAW models can only disembark and embark within 2" of the hatch which means that its impossible for troops to disembark or embark onto the valk from the ground. I am also almost positive 90% (my estimate is conservative) of players who play 40k play this way and only the top 10% which play competitively are actually arguing about this. Furthermore if people are really bothered by it, do 1 of two things. 1) make your own custom base. (I'm sorry willy but if you argue about a custom valk base people will start bitching about bike terminator and scenic bases which detracts from the entire fun/hobby aspect of the game. Which I'm 100% sure won't fly. If they are allowed in tournaments then the custom valks are as well)
Or 2) Make the base detachable. Problem solved. Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

Again sorry about the rant.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736662.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736662.page GMT [/quote]

Where is this stated in the rules? I was under the impression that the stand (ie the vertical part that connects the skimmer to the "base") counted as part of the base, thus the one supplied by GW must be used. I'm not trying to say you're wrong (in fact I'm hoping you're right), I just want to see it stated in the rules. I would be quite happy to shorten the stands for my Valks so they are able to hold/contest objectives and avoid issues with things like deployment and footprint/models underneath and other awkward circumstances.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736687.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736687.page GMT GW must be used.[/quote]
I think the argument is that if you want to play the strict RAW on this issue, you need to create a water-tight RAW argument that the vertical support is part of the "base" that cannot be modified. Since the basing and vehicle rules are too vague to support such an argument, this becomes a RAI issue.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736720.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736720.page GMT
The shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. People need to point at the rulebook and say; "See? Right there on page X it says that I can modify the base the model came with.".

Otherwise we need to glue (when we have to be strict about it) the base that the model came with, to the model.

It is kinda like the conversion issue. I think Yakface said it rather well when he pointed out, that converting our models isn't strictly allowed by the rules. The agrement to allow converting is an unwritten contract between players and issues arise when one player feel the other player has violated the terms of said contract.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736787.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736787.page GMT [/quote]

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't [i]feel[/i] like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736821.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736821.page GMT Not really. Being able to change / modify a model is the default rule in 40k. After all, they come assembled. The rule that bases must be unchanged is an exception to that general rule.

Thus, the question is: "What counts as the unchangeable base section?" It's obvious that the bottom base is part of it. It's less obvious that the little piece sticking up is. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736909.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736909.page GMT
[quote=Page 15][b]THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE[/b]
[b]1 Check line of sight & pick a target.[/b]
Pick one of your units, check its line of sight and choose a target for it. All models in the unit that can see at least one enemy model in the target unit may open fire.

[b]2 Check range. [/b]
At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models.

[b]3 [color=red]Roll to hit. [/color][/b]
Roll a D6 for each shot fired. The model's BS determines what score they must equal or beat to hit their target.[/quote]
[quote][b]BLAST[/b]
Blast weapons fire shells, missiles or bolts of energy that explode on impact.

When firing a blast weapon, [color=red]models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker [/color](see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model or its hull if it is a vehicle. You may not place the marker so that the base or hull of any of your own models is even grazed by it.

Next, [color=red]check if the shot has landed on target[/color]. If the hole at the centre of the marker is beyond the weapon's maximum range, the shot is an automatic miss and the marker is removed.[/quote]
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736995.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/736995.page GMT [/quote]

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't [i]feel[/i] like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.[/quote]

So you can never deploy troops out of the valk, nor can you get any 6" shots from melta's, and you cannot assault it as well? If an enemy model cannot get within 1" of the base because it would be within base contact and counted as in combat, then you are god damn right it contests any objective. Or do you play with only the rules that you seem to like as well?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737017.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737017.page GMT [/quote]

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't [i]feel[/i] like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.[/quote]

So you can never deploy troops out of the valk, nor can you get any 6" shots from melta's, and you cannot assault it as well? If an enemy model cannot get within 1" of the base because it would be within base contact and counted as in combat, then you are god damn right it contests any objective. Or do you play with only the rules that you seem to like as well?[/quote]

Well, the rules specify that you can assault either the base or the hull of the flier. We've been over that already. As far as melta weapons being within 6", if it's not within 6", it's not within range for the bonus D6. Seems pretty clear to me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737021.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737021.page GMT
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737031.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737031.page GMT [/quote]

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't [i]feel[/i] like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.[/quote]

I can understand your frustration at people not playing by the rules I think everyone has that same frustration especially at 5am after a long game. Your specific argument, however, reinforces my point about how things like this really only effect the top 10% playing competitive tournaments and not the vast majority of players.
What I am most interested in seeing, is if GW actually FAQS the valk for these purposes or if they just keep it the same assuming players know what to do. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737260.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737260.page GMT [/quote]

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't [i]feel[/i] like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.[/quote]

I can understand your frustration at people not playing by the rules I think everyone has that same frustration especially at 5am after a long game. Your specific argument, however, reinforces my point about how things like this really only effect the top 10% playing competitive tournaments and not the vast majority of players.
What I am most interested in seeing, is if GW actually FAQS the valk for these purposes or if they just keep it the same assuming players know what to do. [/quote]

Your assumption that tournaments and fun shouldn't go together is a facetious one. Also, most of my games (90%) are "casual" games, and honestly it's tournament players that generally don't know the rules as well, either that or their feigning ignorance for advantage.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737264.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737264.page GMT
*Its a skimmer.
*2in from the hatch is the written standard. Please cite where a vertical distance has to be measured. As you're making this argument its incumbent upopin you to prove that there is a vertical component.


OT but doesn't it say they can deploy not only via normal means but via grave chute deepstrike (don't have the book in front of me)? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737325.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737325.page GMT 2in from the hatch is the written standard. Please cite where a vertical distance has to be measured. As you're making this argument its incumbent upopin you to prove that there is a vertical component.


OT but doesn't it say they can deploy not only via normal means but via grave chute deepstrike (don't have the book in front of me)? [/quote]

The hatch is a part of the hull. That would be two inches measured from the hull section containing a hatch. Whether you measure from the base or from the head (use coherency measurements detailed in Ruins for how vertical measurement works), you still end up with your model in mid-air.

Mid-air being impassable (since you can't stand in it, unless your model is named Arthur Dent), you are told to perform an emergency disembarkation. If even emergency disembarkation is impossible, the unit simply cannot disembark. Without a piece of terrain that comes up to within three to three and a half inches of the hull of a Valkyrie, you would not be allowed to disembark by the current rules. Your only option is Grav-Chute insertion.

OT it does say you can disembark, but does not grant any special exceptions to the disembark rules. All it gives you permission to do is disembark using the normal disembark rules, which for this model can be met by disembarking onto a piece of high terrain. Or Grav-Chute insertion. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737433.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737433.page GMT TM) gaming and not just having fun exploring the limitaiton of GW writing ability?

Er...ok....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737467.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737467.page GMT
I answered that in my earlier post, where I said I would be fine with them disembarking as if it was on a shorter base unless the person I was playing had ever used a RAW argument to enforce something that was obviously idiotic on me. Then he can suck it up and deal with the idiotic (in my opinion) RAW for Valkyries.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737602.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737602.page GMT
I answered that in my earlier post, where I said I would be fine with them disembarking as if it was on a shorter base unless the person I was playing had ever used a RAW argument to enforce something that was obviously idiotic on me. Then he can suck it up and deal with the idiotic (in my opinion) RAW for Valkyries.[/quote]

gotcha. I like your turnabout justice. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737606.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737606.page GMT
Yes this codex should have had a clear set of rules for dealing with the flying stand, but in the GW mindset it would simply never occur to anyone to rules lawyer like this.

They make this beautiful model everyone wants to use in games and than dont bother to even think about how it will actually effect the rules. I can only dream of the day that someone who actually cares about good rules writting gets a position at GW, i know its about as likley as - well I cant think of anything here at the moment that would not offend someone so feel free to fill in here with "random extraordinarilly unlikley event" of your choice.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737631.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737631.page GMT
The rulebook doesn't say that models have to be placed within 2" of the access point on a horizontal plane, simply that they must be placed within a maximum distance of 2". Vertical distance is still distance, therefore it must be included in the measurements unless otherwise specified.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737660.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737660.page GMT
I believe there is support to the vertical distance arguments screwing up the raw since you have t add 12' to the firing distance when the flyer is targeted in the shooting phase.

I don't really care at all about the (dis)embarking rules for game play purposes. I am more upset that you can clearly shoot under it, however not assault it and not move under it. I would use it to keep gun lines from being assaulted or to hinder opponent movement.

I don't play IG so if any of my info is wrong i apologize]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737672.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737672.page GMT raw since you have t add 12' to the firing distance when the flyer is targeted in the shooting phase. [/quote]

The amount of distance it adds is entirely dependent upon the distance you are away from the model. The further away you are the less difference the height makes. You can use the formula for calculating the hypotenuse of a right triangle to figure out exactly what kind of a difference it makes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737682.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737682.page GMT
As has been mentioned, the assault rules specifically allow you to assault skimmers by moving into contact with the base [i]or[/i] the hull.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737875.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737875.page GMT
As has been mentioned, the assault rules specifically allow you to assault skimmers by moving into contact with the base [i]or[/i] the hull.[/quote]

Since he mentioned subtracting 12" of the range of weapons firing at the valkyrie, I think the problem here is that he thinks they use flier rules. They do not. A valkyrie is a skimmer in all respects in the IG codex, and can be assaulted, and is no more difficult to shoot than any other unit.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737927.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737927.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737973.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737973.page GMT RAW, this is pretty cut and dry.

Of course, the old "terminators don't have terminator armor" issue was cut and dry, as was this exact same issue with regards to Wave Serpents.

I think that in casual play anybody that tried to enforce that rule would quickly find himself running short of friends, and I'd like to find a TO with the cajones to make that ruling.

I'm guessing it's going to require some calling ahead to RTTs and the like until this gets hashed out.

Has anybody seen anybody actually enforce this rule, or any other silly RAW ruling?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737991.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/737991.page GMT RAW types could actually agree on.

I'm in the process of building a couple Valks right now. And if I leave the back hatch hanging open it lowers the lowest point of the dismbarkation ramp by a about 2". Then when I mount the Valk on the base I have the rear facing the direction of the stand that slopes slightly downward and I actually sink the stand into the base (much like the current flying stands sink into their base). The base is 1/8" thick so this brings it even closer to the ground. With all this done the lowest point on my Valk is just about 3" from the ground. Now assuming your objective marker is at least 1/8" thick (most are actually much taller--like some barreles etc.) you should be within 3" inches of the objective marker. So that takes care of being within 3" for objective missions.

Now disembarking troops within 2" is still a bit of a problem but if you use the model as opposed to its base (ever played with a defiler?...Everbody does it) then your typical guardsman will easily be within 2" of the hanging down hatch (my standing Tallarn seem to have a good heads worth of left over space).

I'm no technical writer, so I apologize in advance if my modeling instructions were not 100% clear. I wish I could post some pics with measurements but I leave that to you hard core grognards.

I hope this helps ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738016.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738016.page GMT GW is a minatures company, not a gaming company. Sigh.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738071.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738071.page GMT GW's playtesting is awful. I've known playtesters, have seen their sessions, have seen their suggestions, and then watched GW ignore all their advice and come up with crap rules like this one.

If you're going to hold your opponent to rules which are clearly badly written and not thought out, then you're really kind of being unfair to IG players. Wave Serpents can hold objectives but Valks can't because GW designs a horrendous new flying stand? But I can still assault a Valk at the same time. Just doesn't make sense.

Go ahead and follow the rules to the letter and all you're going to do is upset your guard opponents. If you really need to play that way and pull badly written rules out to beat your opponents, it's probably not the best choice in how to play the game.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738132.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738132.page GMT If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738138.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738138.page GMT
Unbelievable that people would try to screw this awesome new model, then act offended when people state quite clearly that to do so would be dumb.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738155.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738155.page GMT If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.
[/quote]
Sounds reasonable. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738262.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738262.page GMT RAW here (unless he was a RAW jerk lol).

But even with that said we can't deny that the poor writing of the valks rules forces us to come up with some kind of common sense house rule so that everyone can have fun.

The problem is what is this rule going to be? Its not just as simple as saying disembarking happens from the base. The valk deviates from the norm in other areas.

Does objective capturing happen from the base or the hull? Or both? Is the valk allowed to cap a ground objective (a coin) and also one that is placed 6" up in a ruins.

And of course in some respects the weird nature of the Valk doesn't gimp it but makes it better. Shooting at an angle shaves off range for example, which can hurt for meltas.

Out of all of the advantages and disadvantages which ones are we taking and leaving? I think this was the main point of the thread.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738273.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738273.page GMT If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.
[/quote]

This is just silly... you can't apply a rule at whim, you need to be at least consistent one way or the other.

Also the only terminators a valk can carry are GK's and if you're afraid of GK Termies (who can't use the new Storm Shield rules), then you really need to quit the game now...

As I have stated on previous threads, my valks won't even have the flying stands because they're simply awful. If someone really won't agree to my low flying valks, then we won't have a game. I doubt it would be fun to play against someone who's that much of a rules lawyer anyway.

Even Willy who's adamant about sticking to the rules has said he'd probably let someone slide in an actual game, but he wouldn't play that way himself.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738315.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738315.page GMT If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.
[/quote]

This is just silly... you can't apply a rule at whim, you need to be at least consistent one way or the other.

Also the only terminators a valk can carry are GK's and if you're afraid of GK Termies (who can't use the new Storm Shield rules), then you really need to quit the game now...

As I have stated on previous threads, my valks won't even have the flying stands because they're simply awful. If someone really won't agree to my low flying valks, then we won't have a game. I doubt it would be fun to play against someone who's that much of a rules lawyer anyway.

Even Willy who's adamant about sticking to the rules has said he'd probably let someone slide in an actual game, but he wouldn't play that way himself.[/quote]

And yet I've had people who seem to be getting seriously angry at me...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738328.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738328.page GMT If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.
[/quote]

This is just silly... you can't apply a rule at whim, you need to be at least consistent one way or the other.

Also the only terminators a valk can carry are GK's and if you're afraid of GK Termies (who can't use the new Storm Shield rules), then you really need to quit the game now...

As I have stated on previous threads, my valks won't even have the flying stands because they're simply awful. If someone really won't agree to my low flying valks, then we won't have a game. I doubt it would be fun to play against someone who's that much of a rules lawyer anyway.

Even Willy who's adamant about sticking to the rules has said he'd probably let someone slide in an actual game, but he wouldn't play that way himself.[/quote]

I think in Solkan's case he was being funny. Stating that if someone tried to exploit RAW against him (such as filling up a valk with heaps of Terminators that by RAW count as taking up 1 space in a valk) then he would force that person to continue playing by RAW and not allow them to disembark.

While I find this prospect amusing it does bring up the important issue of is it ok to chop and choose your RAW? I myself am always confused by this. So many people stick so adamantly to the concept of RAW and yell at you if you ever try and hazard a guess at the developers intentions and play by that. But then despite that they often break RAW when in their opinion a rule is completely messed up. They seem to draw a line where RAW turns into RAI. But who gets to decide that line? Is it okay to use RAW to put 10 GKT in a valk but then break RAW and claim RAI to have them disembark from a Valk?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738351.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738351.page GMT
Though RAW has them unable to contest objectives, and RAI seems to contrary to this, I would be fine with either ruling. On the one hand, a helicopter full of soldiers can't take and hold a building unless the soldiers rope down and get dirty, but on the other hand, why should the Valkyrie suffer from seemingly unintended deficiencies that no other unit has to deal with?

If I ever get Valks, I'll hold myself to RAW until this is FAQ'd. If I face anyone with Valks, I'll let it slide. No need to be a dick to my opponent.

CK]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738607.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738607.page GMT
The examples being top-down does not preclude any need to measure vertically, particularly when the rules never actual [i]say[/i] to measure only on the horizontal plane.

We're told to measure the distance between two points. The RAW, in that case, is to measure the distance between those two points. Not the distance [i]on only one plane[/i] between those points.

In practice, at least from my experience, most players do in fact just measure horizontally for deployment. But it's not actually what the rules tell us to do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738622.page GMT
In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738631.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738631.page GMT
In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK[/quote]

I think they only did a 2 dimensional example because it would be extremely difficult to show proper disembarkation in three dimensions without using multiple camera angles. The rules say "within 2 inches."]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738636.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738636.page GMT
Keep in mind the distinction between what is SAID and what is SHOWN. "Within 2 inches" does not translate to "Within 2 inches in three dimensions" in my brain when the visual aid shows only an overhead measurement being taken.

Again, a minor point of contention that will need clarification.

CK ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738652.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738652.page GMT RAW, For friendlies though, I think it is obvious that RAI should let troops disembark and allow for contesting objectives - no need to punish a friend for GWs inability to playtest and write quality rules.

I would have the discussion with my opponent prior to either kind of game, and include a tournament organizer in the discussion in a competitive game - just to make everything clear.

I am a big stickler for RAW (correctly sized vehicles, etc) in competitive games. If I can win a prize, and I paid an entry fee, I expect the RAW to be followed verbatim.

In friendly games, I support "Rule of Cool".]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738664.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738664.page GMT RAW, For friendlies though, I think it is obvious that RAI should let troops disembark and allow for contesting objectives - no need to punish a friend for GWs inability to playtest and write quality rules.

I would have the discussion with my opponent prior to either kind of game, and include a tournament organizer in the discussion in a competitive game - just to make everything clear.

I am a big stickler for RAW (correctly sized vehicles, etc) in competitive games. If I can win a prize, and I paid an entry fee, I expect the RAW to be followed verbatim.

In friendly games, I support "Rule of Cool".[/quote]

I think that the RAI is pretty clear for troops to be able to embark/disembark, as disembarking is mentioned in the rules for the valkyrie in the codex. However, I think that the RAI for measuring to the hull in other instances (for contesting objectives, checking range, etc.) is not as clear, and you should follow RAW because otherwise you break too many conventions of the game. Like my example with the rhino earlier: if a rhino cannot contest an objective at the top of a 6" building, why should the valkyrie be able to contest a floor-level objective? Seeing as the height of the valkyrie will also ensure that a melta-gun will [i]never[/i] be able to get in half-range I don't see it as being unfair.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738671.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738671.page GMT RAW.[/quote]

If someone pulled RAW on this in a tournament on something as badly written as this situation, I'd butcher their sportsmanship score as much as I could. That's what will probably happen if you play like this in tournaments. Is losing a tournament to a bad sportsmanship score worth allowing Valks to disembark like a normal vehicle and capture objectives? Ask yourself that...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738922.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738922.page GMT RAW.[/quote]

If someone pulled RAW on this in a tournament on something as badly written as this situation, I'd butcher their sportsmanship score as much as I could. That's what will probably happen if you play like this in tournaments. Is losing a tournament to a bad sportsmanship score worth allowing Valks to disembark like a normal vehicle and capture objectives? Ask yourself that...[/quote]

On the other hand, if the imperial guard player feels like he has to break [i]very clear[/i] rules in order to win, then the other player would be even more justified in giving the IG player low sportsmanship scores.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738926.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738926.page GMT On the other hand, if the imperial guard player feels like he has to break [i]very clear[/i] rules in order to win, then the other player would be even more justified in giving the IG player low sportsmanship scores.[/quote]

I wouldn't call this a "very clear" rules situation. It's a complete screw up on GW's part on multiple levels. You not only have badly written, contradictory rules that are clearly not what the author intended, you also are dealing with a badly designed model that they cobbled together out of parts they already had. If you need to keep someone from allowing their transports to contest objectives in order to win, you probably shouldn't be playing in tournaments anyway.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738929.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738929.page GMT RAI and the actual rules that are written in the rulebook and codex [i]may[/i] not agree with each other.

I believe that there is RAI evidence for being able to disembark/embark, as it is mentioned in the rules for the valkyrie, although those rules do not specifically give you alternate rules for doing so.

So in order to play it as you think it is intended, you have to deviate significantly from how the rules say vehicle size and placement say to do so.

That would be using "house rules."

To expect your opponent to automatically let you use non-RAW rules in a tournament setting because you feel it's the right thing to do is [i]not[/i] good sportsmanship.

If you discuss things ahead of time with your opponent, I'm sure that most of the time they'll agree with you, even in a tournament setting. However, you should be prepared to play by the rules if your opponent does not agree with you.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738938.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738938.page GMT LOL let me cheat or I shoot your sportsmanship score" is a very intelligent response to following the rules though.

I'll admit, these rules do seem a little ridiculous. I wouldn't follow them, unless the IG player was being ridiculous himself about RaW. If your Valk had GKT in it for example.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738942.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738942.page GMT
In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK[/quote]

I think they only did a 2 dimensional example because it would be extremely difficult to show proper disembarkation in three dimensions without using multiple camera angles. The rules say "within 2 inches."[/quote]

If that is the case, then when the rules state that you must deploy within 12" of the board edge, do you always stay completely on the ground? Lets say you deployed on the top floor of a tall building that was at the outer limit of your deployment zone. This could easily put you more than 12" from your edge. But no one seems to care about that (?).

Not trying to start a new discussion on dimensions, but the inconsistency does seem odd IMHO.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738970.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738970.page GMT LOL let me cheat or I shoot your sportsmanship score" is a very intelligent response to following the rules though.

I'll admit, these rules do seem a little ridiculous. I wouldn't follow them, unless the IG player was being ridiculous himself about RaW. If your Valk had GKT in it for example.[/quote]

If the rule weren't ridiculous, I would agree with you. I would hardly call it cheating to expect my transports to be able to to the same thing that everyone else's transports are able to do. I would also not call an RAI interpretation of a horribly written rule cheating either. I'd call someone making me stick to an RAW interpretation in this situation bad sportsmanship. It's a total RAI situation because why would someone expect to not be able to embark or disembark from a transport? If they really intended to have the only transport in the game not be able to to embark or disembark troops the same way as every other transport in the game, they probably would have made it specific in the rules where they discuss grav chute insertion. I doubt they saw this oblique rules problem with the flying stand and just assumed everyone would stick with that. They probably didn't see the conflict the flying stand is creating and didn't bother to make up special rules for something they didn't take into account.

The source of the problem in many ways isn't the way the rules are written, but is that stupid flying stand. My Valkyries aren't modeled using it because I think it's badly designed and impractical. This doesn't break the rules, but my opponent could tell me I couldn't use the models if he wanted to. I would butcher that person's sportsmanship score if they did that to me at a tournament. How much of a jerk would someone be if they forced someone to take several hundred points out of their army over using or not using a flying stand?

It's not like I modeled them that way to get some kind of real rules bending game advantage. Even if I did model them so I could disembark my troops and capture objectives more easily with my Valks, that's really not some kind of over the top game changing situation. If you went up against any other army in the game, you'd have to deal with their non-dedicated transports contesting objectives. It's not going to change the whole game to have Guard players get to do the same thing literally everyone else can do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738974.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738974.page GMT
In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK[/quote]

I think they only did a 2 dimensional example because it would be extremely difficult to show proper disembarkation in three dimensions without using multiple camera angles. The rules say "within 2 inches."[/quote]

If that is the case, then when the rules state that you must deploy within 12" of the board edge, do you always stay completely on the ground? Lets say you deployed on the top floor of a tall building that was at the outer limit of your deployment zone. This could easily put you more than 12" from your edge. But no one seems to care about that (?).

Not trying to start a new discussion on dimensions, but the inconsistency does seem odd IMHO.[/quote]

Because most of the deployment rules actually state "farther than 12" from the center of the board" and other phrases like that.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738977.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738977.page GMT 40k to not be so strict with verticle distances...


[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
Hold the phone... I found a solution...

P.3 says you have to glue the model to the base... but it doesn't say how. Technically I could glue the clear plastic tall part of the stand sideways on the base and glue the valk next to it or on top of it. I could also cut the clear plastic part into small pieces and rest the Valk on top of that. It would be pretty easy to model it in such a way where the Valk would have an 1" of verticle clearance or less.

Problem solved...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738980.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/738980.page GMT 40k to not be so strict with verticle distances...[/quote]

You don't need a precedent to play the game however you like. You're entitled to do that anyway.

The fact that everyone plays a given rule incorrectly (or deliberately different to the RAW) doesn't change the rule.



[quote]P.3 says you have to glue the model to the base... but it doesn't say how.[/quote]

Not a new solution, sorry. It inevitably gets dragged out by someone every time we have a discussion on skimmers and their bases. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739026.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739026.page GMT RAW.[/quote]

If someone pulled RAW on this in a tournament on something as badly written as this situation, I'd butcher their sportsmanship score as much as I could. That's what will probably happen if you play like this in tournaments. Is losing a tournament to a bad sportsmanship score worth allowing Valks to disembark like a normal vehicle and capture objectives? Ask yourself that...[/quote]

On the other hand, if the imperial guard player feels like he has to break [i]very clear[/i] rules in order to win, then the other player would be even more justified in giving the IG player low sportsmanship scores.[/quote]

Let's not over state things. One of the first things you learn in both written and oral advocacy is to avoid terms like "Clearly", "Obviously," and the like. If things were truly "very clear," we wouldn't be four pages into discussion. The rule is straight forward, but it's application is only clear if you simply assume that all aspects of 40k are three dimensional, which the vast majority of players do not. Maybe we should be, but aside from highly specific situations like floors of a ruin, most players treat the game as pretty two dimensional.

I mean, if you roll 5" for difficult, and move from the table top to 2" up on a hill, do you only move 3" horizontally? If we're playing Pitched battle, and I deploy a squad 6" up in a ruin that's only 10" horizonatally from the table center line, is that a valid deployment because no model is within 12"?

There is a subtle difference between Literalism and RAW. RAW includes all the ways that rules are written thoughout the text to try to come to a logical conclusion. I'm not sure that it's crystal clear we're supposed to use a third dimension.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739060.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739060.page GMT
If you want to make the “Stand or Flying Base” shorter by all means go ahead, it’s not part of the base but instead what attaches the model to the base. A base is defined in the dictionary as: “The lowest part of a structure” as in the black portion plastic that touches the table.

Now some people may say well it doesn’t say you can change the size of the “Stand or Flying Base” anywhere in the rulebook therefore you can’t do it. I would say well, show me where it says you can change or modify your models in any fashion? Tell them all their Forge World models, weapon options that didn’t come on the same sprue, or even the slightest smidge of green stuff makes that model illegal.

Now, do I think it should come to any of this? No of course not. I think you should play on the “Base” and “Stand or Flying Base” that comes with the model. Yet, if you have a person who insists you can’t contest objectives or load models into the Valkyire then simply put it on a shorter “Stand or Flying Base”. If they say it’s illegal to do that then utilize the argument I just wrote out above and show them all the illegal models in their army they can’t use anymore.

Now for you people who say that when GW said you can’t modify the “base” without asking your opponent that this includes both “Bases” and “Stands or Flying Bases” I would say RAW they are different and prove it otherwise.

On a final note if all above fails, just get a piece of cardboard and tape it to the ramp to extend it for those who insist that the above argument isn’t valid. Make it so long that it touches the ground and you then have found a way to fix all the problems. Ensure that it’s not painted and just a quickly cut piece of cardboard with a small piece of tape to be the ultimate smart ass.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739185.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739185.page GMT
I'm going to model all of my predators and battlewagons to be 9" wide and 3" long so I only have 3" side arcs. Better yet, I'll make them triangles so they don't have a rear arc at all.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739194.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739194.page GMT RAW is wrong here".



It didn't exist when the rules were written so it slipped through on some things. There's gonna be a lot of rules worked out on a game-by-game basis. I'd say disembark in contact with the base and allow contesting from the base and hull. I'm inclined to say it's a bit advantageous to do that but you'd defeat the idea of the valk doing otherwise. I don't like breaking rules but I can't imagine seeing a unit crippled like that. People have workarounds for other things, why not here?


Edit: isn't the damn thing a skimmer? Wouldn't you just disembark it like it was a skimmer? They have that inherent variable height and you disembark them as if they were on ground level. Wouldn't the valk be treated the exact same way?

Am I dreaming or is this argument pointless?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739200.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739200.page GMT
I'm going to model all of my predators and battlewagons to be 9" wide and 3" long so I only have 3" side arcs. Better yet, I'll make them triangles so they don't have a rear arc at all.[/quote]

If you feel thats legal and that the RAI support this by all means, I dont think many people would play with you. I think we all know what the RAI for the Valkyire are, its the people trying to argue the RAW make it a useless transport because they feel threatened by it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739210.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739210.page GMT
Vertical distance only matters when you have to pass through air to get to someplace you are allowed to stand. Hills never have this problem, you are always moving on the horizontal across the terrain, even if the hill rises.

To your second question, yes, I would say you could actually do that if such a piece of terrain was situated to allow it.


[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Gandair]Edit: isn't the damn thing a skimmer? Wouldn't you just disembark it like it was a skimmer? They have that inherent variable height and you disembark them as if they were on ground level. Wouldn't the valk be treated the exact same way?

Am I dreaming or is this argument pointless?[/quote]

Gandair is correct. Page 71: [i]Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, [b]access points[/b] and fire points, [b]which all work as normal[/b].[/i]

Emphasis mine. That one sentence makes Valkyries able to embark and disembark as normal. Measure distances as if the vehicle were on the ground, not on a base for the access points.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739220.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739220.page GMT
Vertical distance only matters when you have to pass through air to get to someplace you are allowed to stand. Hills never have this problem, you are always moving on the horizontal across the terrain, even if the hill rises.

To your second question, yes, I would say you could actually do that if such a piece of terrain was situated to allow it.


[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Gandair]Edit: isn't the damn thing a skimmer? Wouldn't you just disembark it like it was a skimmer? They have that inherent variable height and you disembark them as if they were on ground level. Wouldn't the valk be treated the exact same way?

Am I dreaming or is this argument pointless?[/quote]

Gandair is correct. Page 71: [i]Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, [b]access points[/b] and fire points, [b]which all work as normal[/b].[/i]

Emphasis mine. That one sentence makes Valkyries able to embark and disembark as normal. Measure distances as if the vehicle were on the ground, not on a base for the access points.[/quote]

No, "working as normal" in this case means measuring from the access points, fire points, and weapons. The access points on a valkyrie are pretty well attached to its hull.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739237.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739237.page GMT
The rule in full is: [i]Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmers base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicles hull, its base or both.[/i]

"The skimmers base is effectively ignored". Where did this idea come from that we count the height of the base when the skimmer rule is telling us to ignore it?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739248.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739248.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739297.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739297.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739314.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739314.page GMT askyourquestion@games-workshop.com about this yet?

I just did so then, so I guess we'll get another perspective on it soon (about a week). The reply should provide some reference point for thought and house ruling on this issue. Also hopefully encourage its inclusion in a FAQ.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739334.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739334.page GMT GT. While not GW or faq, this is a major tournament and does set a precedent.

1. Can the Valkyrie contest objectives/claim them if loaded with troops, since it is so high off the ground? If I put its base on the objective?
2. Can the Valkyrie still outflank with troops on board?
3. Can the Valkyrie embark/disembark troops as normal without having to deep strike (height problems b/c of base)?

1. Yes, treat the vehical as if it sits on the table for this purpose.
2. Yes, the vehical does not lose this special ablitity.
3. Yes, look at answer # 1

http://thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739344.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739344.page GMT GT. While not GW or faq, this is a major tournament and does set a precedent.

1. Can the Valkyrie contest objectives/claim them if loaded with troops, since it is so high off the ground? If I put its base on the objective?
2. Can the Valkyrie still outflank with troops on board?
3. Can the Valkyrie embark/disembark troops as normal without having to deep strike (height problems b/c of base)?

1. Yes, treat the vehical as if it sits on the table for this purpose.
2. Yes, the vehical does not lose this special ablitity.
3. Yes, look at answer # 1

http://thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30


[/quote]

Man, I wish I was playing in that tournament. I'd model my 5 Land Speeders so they all sit 12.01" above the table. No more having to worry about meltaguns and rapid fire weapons, but I can still zoom 24" over to objectives and contest them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739365.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739365.page GMT Inat Faq is in play, so a player could request your model to be replaced with a model with an appropriate base for measuring heights and etc (Ie the base it came with)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739374.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739374.page GMT [/quote]

If you choose a path you have to accept the advantages together with the disadvantages.

advantages of the 11" base:
- nearly unimpeded LOS to the whole battlefield, more target choices, less chance to grant a coversave to your shooting target.
- enemies can only assault the base, so they have to move a few inches further than if the thing would be sitting on the ground
- your enemy needs elevated terrain to get within half melta range
disadvantages of the 11" base:
- you need elevated terrain to embark into a valk

If i make you choose to:
- leave the base attached and play by the rules
or
- remove the base and still play by the rules

I bet ya 3 internets you'll choose to leave the base attached because the advantages far outweigh the single disadvantage. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739379.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739379.page GMT
If you choose a path you have to accept the advantages together with the disadvantages.

advantages of the 11" base:
- nearly unimpeded LOS to the whole battlefield, more target choices, less chance to grant a coversave to your shooting target.
- enemies can only assault the base, so they have to move a few inches further than if the thing would be sitting on the ground
- your enemy needs elevated terrain to get within half melta range
disadvantages of the 11" base:
- you need elevated terrain to embark into a valk

If i make you choose to:
- leave the base attached and play by the rules
or
- remove the base and still play by the rules

I bet ya 3 internets you'll choose to leave the base attached because the advantages far outweigh the single disadvantage. [/quote]

Good summation of the central conflict of this thread. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it too, and are willing to break the rules in order to do so.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739396.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739396.page GMT RAW interpretations in friendly games you could always bust out Yarrick and his anywhere on the board after death teleportation rules. This is an obvious case where RAI should be used over RAW. There are always cases needed for both.

Regardless, I have a major tournament answer (GW GT circuit) so I will play with those rules until superceded by an update to inat faq or GW faq occurs.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739430.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739430.page GMT faq interpretation like there is for BoLscon where you must use a base that is the same height as the one that comes with the model. It just makes it so much more of a pain to transport...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739526.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739526.page GMT inat faq which most tournaments are now using:

RB.03B.01 – Q: When models are supplied with multiple differently sized bases, are players allowed to choose which base to mount them on?
A: Players must, to the best of their ability, mount models on the proper base size as dictated by the majority of Games Workshop hobby materials [clarification]. When in doubt, contact the tournament organizer for a ruling on a particular model.

RB.03B.02 – Q: If a model is mounted on a scenic base and an opponent objects to it, what happens?
A: If an opponent objects to a scenic base, the model may still be used in the game. However during the game, to the best of both players’ abilities, the model must be treated as if it were based on a standard-sized, non-scenic Games Workshop base [clarification].
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739552.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739552.page GMT
EDIT: Removed the (like rotating a vehicle) since this would actually have game impact.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739641.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739641.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739670.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739670.page GMT
I'm going to model all of my predators and battlewagons to be 9" wide and 3" long so I only have 3" side arcs. Better yet, I'll make them triangles so they don't have a rear arc at all.[/quote]

If you think this is the same as disembarking from a stock Valkyrie, then it's pretty clear that people should stop responding to you.

+1 to the ignore list.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739671.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739671.page GMT No there isn't. I mean its not your fault that gravity works. Of course if you sandwich your IG trooper in-between a cat and a piece of buttered toast you can solve the gravity problem.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739710.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739710.page GMT
I don't think it's that we want the best of both worlds, we just want the valk to be treated like any other skimmer.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739840.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739840.page GMT inat faq which most tournaments are now using:

RB.03B.01 – Q: When models are supplied with multiple differently sized bases, are players allowed to choose which base to mount them on?
A: Players must, to the best of their ability, mount models on the proper base size as dictated by the majority of Games Workshop hobby materials [clarification]. When in doubt, contact the tournament organizer for a ruling on a particular model.

RB.03B.02 – Q: If a model is mounted on a scenic base and an opponent objects to it, what happens?
A: If an opponent objects to a scenic base, the model may still be used in the game. However during the game, to the best of both players’ abilities, the model must be treated as if it were based on a standard-sized, non-scenic Games Workshop base [clarification].
[/quote]

I could live with this because it would mean I wouldn't have to carry that god awful flying stand to tournaments...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739938.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739938.page GMT imo.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739976.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739976.page GMT imo.[/quote]

Except the rules tell us that a skimmer can only be removed from its base when it's destroyed or immobilized.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739987.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739987.page GMT imo.[/quote]

Except the rules tell us that a skimmer can only be removed from its base when it's destroyed or immobilized.[/quote]

I bet GW never dreamed a 10inch base would cause so many issues!

To speak the obvious this issue might not get resolved until GW chimes in.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739999.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/739999.page GMT

I say measure horizantally without regard for height by the way.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740044.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740044.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740049.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740049.page GMT GT. While not GW or faq, this is a major tournament and does set a precedent.

1. Can the Valkyrie contest objectives/claim them if loaded with troops, since it is so high off the ground? If I put its base on the objective?
2. Can the Valkyrie still outflank with troops on board?
3. Can the Valkyrie embark/disembark troops as normal without having to deep strike (height problems b/c of base)?

1. Yes, treat the vehical as if it sits on the table for this purpose.
2. Yes, the vehical does not lose this special ablitity.
3. Yes, look at answer # 1

http://thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30


[/quote]

Thank god for reasonable TO's

The intent is so clear from the wording that they intended the model to be alowed to disembark and there has never been a model that was measured using vertical distance. And everyone calling this strict RAW is being very selective. The rule says "within 2 inches", the example shows this to be horizontal distance and there is neither precedent nor example for this to be measured as vertical distance. To say that it there is clear RAW preventing Valks from being allowed to do what the rule entry says they can do is just selective reading to support your desire to cripple the model. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740119.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740119.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740129.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740129.page GMT GT. While not GW or faq, this is a major tournament and does set a precedent.

1. Can the Valkyrie contest objectives/claim them if loaded with troops, since it is so high off the ground? If I put its base on the objective?
2. Can the Valkyrie still outflank with troops on board?
3. Can the Valkyrie embark/disembark troops as normal without having to deep strike (height problems b/c of base)?

1. Yes, treat the vehical as if it sits on the table for this purpose.
2. Yes, the vehical does not lose this special ablitity.
3. Yes, look at answer # 1

http://thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30


[/quote]

Thank god for reasonable TO's

The intent is so clear from the wording that they intended the model to be alowed to disembark and there has never been a model that was measured using vertical distance. And everyone calling this strict RAW is being very selective. The rule says "within 2 inches", the example shows this to be horizontal distance and there is neither precedent nor example for this to be measured as vertical distance. To say that it there is clear RAW preventing Valks from being allowed to do what the rule entry says they can do is just selective reading to support your desire to cripple the model. [/quote]

See, I see the TO's ruling to be unfair, because it specifies that the valk is only "on the table" for purposes of disembarking/embarking, and contesting. It means that the players get all the advantages of being on a tall base (LoS, outside of double-melta range, can contest high objectives) with [i]none[/i] of the disadvantages.

[i]Every other vehicle in the game[/i] has to play with limitations based on the size and shape of the model. Players assuming that they'll automatically get special exceptions because they feel like it is silly.

As far as the 2D/3D movement thing: look at the picture of the jetbike moving on page 83 of the rulebook. The example shows three-dimensional measurement of movement, so no, it's not so clear that GW intends for all movement and measurement to be made in a two-dimensional plane.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740133.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740133.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740184.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740184.page GMT
If they [i]all[/i] have one how will they figure out who's da real boss?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740193.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740193.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740202.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740202.page GMT
Don't you have to measure from the model's base to the hull of the Valk? Movement is measured from a model's base no?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740205.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740205.page GMT
Don't you have to measure from the model's base to the hull of the Valk? Movement is measured from a model's base no?[/quote]

Movement is measured from any point on the model, as the movement rules do not specify that you use the base to move, just as long as you're not moving more than your allotted allowance. And while disembarking has [i]some[/i] similarities to movement, it is not normal movement, and the rules for disembarking do not say the base has to be within 2", just that the [i]model[/i] has to be within 2".]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740209.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740209.page GMT RaW for this just stupid. I'm merely saying that it's a handy gem for people that want to stick GKT in their Valk's.

I do think that if you want the advantages, people should be able to melta the base, and that you should only measure from the base for determining objective contesting. The LoS issue is kinda grey. I'd probably let that one slide (not much grants a 'fex a cover save anyways).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740210.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740210.page GMT RaW for this just stupid. I'm merely saying that it's a handy gem for people that want to stick GKT in their Valk's.

I do think that if you want the advantages, people should be able to melta the base, and that you should only measure from the base for determining objective contesting. The LoS issue is kinda grey. I'd probably let that one slide (not much grants a 'fex a cover save anyways).[/quote]

I agree with you. I just think that players should [i]know all the pertinent rules[/i] before they decide which ones they need to break to make the model playable, and also [i]discuss it with your opponents[/i] before just assuming that you have the [i]right[/i] to play by whatever variant rules you want.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740220.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740220.page GMT
To get to the othe-KILL MAIM BURN!!!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740255.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740255.page GMT
Here are your relevant page numbers.

PG. 12 example for moving models

PG. pg 16 LOS

PG. For Embarking and Disembarking clearly shows that it is judge by the base of the model.


Now let's go over to moving horizantally which you can find a example of the rules and although does not cover disembarkation from a vehicle leads to illustrate how you measure "up" ; As if we used your example of measuring from the models head then he would be able to move beyond his movement up etc..

pg83 is pretty clear on that when measuring horizantilly for movement ; not for coherency which gives leeway because of terrain.


My point ultimatley is that people who want to argue this have to go with it all across the board ; I don't think that the Valkyrie model is the only model that causes problems because of its size per example the defiler and what counts as being in base to base.


Ultimately I dont think this will ever be considered by GW as it is kind of a dumb question and they generally dont answer questions like this.


If you want email the question guy but I dont believe he will side with the models not being able to disembark normally.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740271.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740271.page GMT GT. While not GW or faq, this is a major tournament and does set a precedent.

1. Can the Valkyrie contest objectives/claim them if loaded with troops, since it is so high off the ground? If I put its base on the objective?
2. Can the Valkyrie still outflank with troops on board?
3. Can the Valkyrie embark/disembark troops as normal without having to deep strike (height problems b/c of base)?

1. Yes, treat the vehical as if it sits on the table for this purpose.
2. Yes, the vehical does not lose this special ablitity.
3. Yes, look at answer # 1

http://thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30


[/quote]

Thank god for reasonable TO's

The intent is so clear from the wording that they intended the model to be alowed to disembark and there has never been a model that was measured using vertical distance. And everyone calling this strict RAW is being very selective. The rule says "within 2 inches", the example shows this to be horizontal distance and there is neither precedent nor example for this to be measured as vertical distance. To say that it there is clear RAW preventing Valks from being allowed to do what the rule entry says they can do is just selective reading to support your desire to cripple the model. [/quote]

So if I had a land raider and my table terrain had a 20 inch cliff - with your explanation of disembarking I could drive to the edge and drop my guys down the cliff 20 inches as long as they are within 2 inches horizontally of the hatch. Or I could even drive my land raider to a section of wall and have them disembark 2 stories above the tank as long as they are within 2 inches horizontally of the hatch.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740293.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740293.page GMT
While there is no rule saying that the bases of a model do not count as part of a model, there is also no rule saying that you can only measure to/from the base, and in the case of skimmers, it is very specific that the only time you measure to the base is for assaulting the skimmer.

The rules also don't ever specify whether movement is in a 3D world, or a 2D plane, but the example on page 83 [i]very clearly[/i] shows 3D movement in the case of that jetbike. In a game that uses 3D models and terrain, and movement in inches rather than in grid squares, 3D movement is the most intuitive, and most simple way to do it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740294.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740294.page GMT
Page 3 of the rulebook: "Measuring Distances"

All measurement uses the base of the model. The only time you can use a different part of the model is when the rules say that you can. Specifically applying to vehicles and for measuring coherency in ruins.

You can't measure to the model's head for disembarking. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740307.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740307.page GMT
Page 3 of the rulebook: "Measuring Distances"

All measurement uses the base of the model. The only time you can use a different part of the model is when the rules say that you can. Specifically applying to vehicles and for measuring coherency in ruins.

You can't measure to the model's head for disembarking. [/quote]

Good call.

I guess this really is a problem with [i]all[/i] skimmers then... not just valkyries... GWs rules really make me want to not play the game any more.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740315.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740315.page GMT
Does the storm have a different flight stem to the regular landspeeder? Because so far as I'm aware, skimmers (other than the Valk) all come with one of 2 different flight stem sprues, each with 2 stems. The first has stems that are a little over a half and a little over 3/4s of an inch tall. The other has stems that are 1 and a quarter and 1 and 3/8s of an inch tall.



[quote]Oh and Dark Eldar Reavers as well that flying base it comes with places it like 2 and 1/2 inches off of the table there for you cannot dismount.[/quote]

The Reaver is a potential problem if mounted on the tallest stem.


[quote]I say measure horizantally without regard for height by the way.[/quote]

Which is fine, and as I mentioned before, how the majority of people seem to play. It's simply not what the rules actually say to do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740323.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740323.page GMT GW flying bases are taller don't forget to add in the few centimeters for the stand as well as the attachment; Basically it sits around 2/ 3/4th of a inch off the ground or at least mine do and I have the same landspeeders everyone else does.


My whole point is that this is kind of just taking it a little to far and then that is the whole " common sense is not common."


I say measure regardless of height there is not precendent except under the buildings section and everything else is done by measurment from the base.


Also, here is a nifty what if " You can't see the valkyrie but clearly see the base? Can you shoot that ? No you cant.


The whole model takes some adjusting also its at a disadvantage EVERYTHING on the battlefield can see this thing when its on that base.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740402.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740402.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740409.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740409.page GMT
Page 3 of the rulebook: "Measuring Distances"

All measurement uses the base of the model. The only time you can use a different part of the model is when the rules say that you can. Specifically applying to vehicles and for measuring coherency in ruins.

You can't measure to the model's head for disembarking. [/quote]

Good call.

I guess this really is a problem with [i]all[/i] skimmers then... not just valkyries... GWs rules really make me want to not play the game any more.[/quote]

Wow I knew a rule Willy didn't? Holy cow...

Seriously though, GW is reknowned for screwing up rules. There games have been a mess since Rogue Trader. They will always make rules like this... kinda sad really...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740431.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740431.page GMT GW flying bases are taller don't forget to add in the few centimeters for the stand as well as the attachment; Basically it sits around 2/ 3/4th of a inch off the ground or at least mine do and I have the same landspeeders everyone else does.[/quote]

The current landspeeder model has only ever been released with the current flight bases. The taller flight bases haven't been around since 2nd edition.

Even with the ball joint on top (which I don't think they come with any more), the tallest stem isn't more than 2". If yours are taller, you're not using the base it was supplied with.



[quote]My whole point is that this is kind of just taking it a little to far and then that is the whole " common sense is not common."[/quote]

Taking what too far?

Discussing the rules serves to make everyone aware of what the rules actually are. In this situation, it turns out that a lot of players play in a way that is actually contrary to the rules, and in many cases are not even aware of this fact. Making them aware of it serves to reduce potential problems... They're not caught by surprise when an opponent calls them on it.

There's nothing wrong with measuring horizontally for disembarking distance... so long as you're [i]aware[/i] of the fact that it's not actually what the rules say to do, and are prepared for the fact that others may play it diferently... either by the rules as written, or by some [i]other[/i] house rule.

Taking your house rule and assuming that it's the only way to play the game is where problems lie.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740468.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740468.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740480.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740480.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740511.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740511.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740521.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740521.page GMT GT circuit is to play horizontally, and all indications are that is going to be the rulling for the INAT FAQ as well maybe we can put this one to bed.

The RAW is very easily debatable, yes but its not clear either way. Either case requires you to presume things that are not written. Nothing in the rules says to measure vertically, the example shows horizontal but there is mention of 3d measurment in other places so its just nothing but questions.

It is however very clear that the intent was for them to be able to disembark.

On the other hand, the claiming objectives issue is not ambiguous at all, by the RAW valks cant contest objectives, if you measure by the hull. If you use the bese then enemy weapons should be able to hit me by the base as well.

Taking a look at the model though if you are shooting at my valk you dont want to measure from the base because it extends so far from the base and the stand is not 10" high it is 5" so short melta range works just fine.

The problem is that you either have to make compromises with the poorly written rules or you have to make rulings that are very obviously against the intent of the codex either way some people will be unhappy.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740558.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740558.page GMT GT circuit is to play horizontally, and all indications are that is going to be the rulling for the INAT FAQ as well maybe we can put this one to bed.

The RAW is very easily debatable, yes but its not clear either way. Either case requires you to presume things that are not written. Nothing in the rules says to measure vertically, the example shows horizontal but there is mention of 3d measurment in other places so its just nothing but questions.

It is however very clear that the intent was for them to be able to disembark.

On the other hand, the claiming objectives issue is not ambiguous at all, by the RAW valks cant contest objectives, if you measure by the hull. If you use the bese then enemy weapons should be able to hit me by the base as well.

Taking a look at the model though if you are shooting at my valk you dont want to measure from the base because it extends so far from the base and the stand is not 10" high it is 5" so short melta range works just fine.

The problem is that you either have to make compromises with the poorly written rules or you have to make rulings that are very obviously against the intent of the codex either way some people will be unhappy.

[/quote]

Oh my gooses, did a Dakka YMDC thread just end on an amicable note with a general consensus arrived at by hashing out how the rules work? I think I may have to watch out for falling pig feces.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740741.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740741.page GMT That's if your opponent is someone who has ever pulled the "you absolutely must use RAW even though it is clearly broken" stuff. For anyone else that you would enjoy a friendly game with, I don't mind them embarking/disembarking from the base.
[/quote]
[quote=bigtmac68]It is however very clear that the intent was for them to be able to disembark.[/quote]
The RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740817.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740817.page GMT Oh my gooses, did a Dakka YMDC thread just end on an amicable note with a general consensus arrived at by hashing out how the rules work? I think I may have to watch out for falling pig feces.[/quote]

Nah, people just got bored when the 'Let's resort to appeals to authority!' people came in and started talking about tournament rulings. Everybody knows that you can't reach consensus on the Internet. This is just the cease fire.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740823.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740823.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740885.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740885.page GMT RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."[/quote]
I completely agree.
RAI can't be determined so you go with RAW. IMO the vendetta is good enough for it points even with no transport capability what so ever so no need to house rule it either.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740937.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/740937.page GMT I like this idea

Course, I just like it 'cause it would make for the most awesome armored advance in the history of 40k.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741009.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741009.page GMT RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."
[/quote]

I cant see how you can say that RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations.

Im not saying that there is clear RAW in support of disembarkation, I freely admit its a cluster bleep of a problem due to unclearly written rules and a lack of consideration by GW of the complications of the flying base. But to blithely dismiss the argument as
"Well RAW is clear", is just refusing to look at both sides of the argument.

As for RAI that is very clear since the book itself says that Grav Shute insertion is done In addition to regular disembarkation and only if the model moves over 12"

" if the model moves over 12" the troops may [b]STILL[/b] disembark ..."

Is this a well worded rule that makes things clear, no its a piece of crap that insults us by its refusal to explain things properly. But it also makes very clear that the makes of the book intended for the Vaklyrie to be a Transport like any other transport but with an added ability that is well balanced by the extremely high risk to the unit using it.

Again, thank god for sane TO's this is why I only go to tourneys that either use the INAT FAQ or have something simillar that clears up rulings in advance. I may not agree with all of the rulings in the FAQ, but I thank god for the clarity it provides.

Finally, on the subject of the realism of units disembarking and rembarking on the Valkyrie, that one annoys me particularly as I served in the 1/504 PIR, 82nd Airborne, and 20 years ago we were all trained on how to disembark from a hovering VTOL ( the valk is a VTOL) by fastroping. Its no streatch of credulity to assume that the IG has at least equal training to our own airmobile infantry. Rembarking is pretty simple as well as it's not like the damn plane dose not have the landing gear permanently deployed, so its obviously intended for the same kind of fast skip pickups as any other VTOL.

I just dont understand how anyone would thing that it's RAI for them to make it a transport that cant function as a transport without saying something to that effect. I can see them not bothering to explain how you would do it because they dont belive that rules are that important, but when they want to DISALLOW something they are usually pretty specific about that. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741535.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741535.page GMT RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."
[/quote]

I cant see how you can say that RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations.

Im not saying that there is clear RAW in support of disembarkation, I freely admit its a cluster bleep of a problem due to unclearly written rules and a lack of consideration by GW of the complications of the flying base. But to blithely dismiss the argument as
"Well RAW is clear", is just refusing to look at both sides of the argument.

As for RAI that is very clear since the book itself says that Grav Shute insertion is done In addition to regular disembarkation and only if the model moves over 12"

" if the model moves over 12" the troops may [b]STILL[/b] disembark ..."

Is this a well worded rule that makes things clear, no its a piece of crap that insults us by its refusal to explain things properly. But it also makes very clear that the makes of the book intended for the Vaklyrie to be a Transport like any other transport but with an added ability that is well balanced by the extremely high risk to the unit using it.

Again, thank god for sane TO's this is why I only go to tourneys that either use the INAT FAQ or have something simillar that clears up rulings in advance. I may not agree with all of the rulings in the FAQ, but I thank god for the clarity it provides.

Finally, on the subject of the realism of units disembarking and rembarking on the Valkyrie, that one annoys me particularly as I served in the 1/504 PIR, 82nd Airborne, and 20 years ago we were all trained on how to disembark from a hovering VTOL ( the valk is a VTOL) by fastroping. Its no streatch of credulity to assume that the IG has at least equal training to our own airmobile infantry. Rembarking is pretty simple as well as it's not like the damn plane dose not have the landing gear permanently deployed, so its obviously intended for the same kind of fast skip pickups as any other VTOL.

I just dont understand how anyone would thing that it's RAI for them to make it a transport that cant function as a transport without saying something to that effect. I can see them not bothering to explain how you would do it because they dont belive that rules are that important, but when they want to DISALLOW something they are usually pretty specific about that. [/quote]

I stopped by my local GW store last night and happened to mention the argument on this thread. Without hesitation 3 staff members agreed that players should measure from the base of the model (as a proxy to the rule of measuring from the hull)- for disembarking troops and embarking troops. They also recommended sketching/painting guides on the model base in reference to the hatch locations so a 2" measurement can be easily accomplished. They postulated that in 1 turn, the vehicle can drop from the sky, unload, and rise quickly up in seconds. When we deploy our forces we forgo the actions of removing the base, lowering the model, unloading the troops, and then returning it back to the base - all for simplicity sake. It was the first time I laid eyes on the vehicle and the base (I had the impression it was 10 inches tall but rather it was about 5inches tall) and it was obvious to me that the GW staff got it right.
It is now clear in my mind.

*edited for clarity of my argument]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741734.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741734.page GMT
No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741903.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741903.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741906.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741906.page GMT 40k]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741911.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741911.page GMT
I mis-spoke and I was not clear enough. The rule says measure from the hull - however in the case of the valkyrie, the base is roughly the same size as the hull and therefore can be marked for accurate measurement. I don't see any game breaking rules by following these methods.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741940.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741940.page GMT
No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.[/quote]

Except you would not be using the base it was supplied with - you'd be "modelling for advantage" and lying.

[quote=Waaaaaaagh!]It doesn't. People are idiots who play Househammer 40k[/quote]

Using Houserules is only for idiots?

Numpty!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741941.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741941.page GMT
No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.[/quote]

If you want to argue this - then you could simply do the same for any other model. If a player wants to be dishonest, then measuring from the hull or the base will not stop them. To be honest, if you feel like you need to trim down your base to beat me, then go ahead, it shows how weak a gamer you really are.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741951.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741951.page GMT
The example does [i]not[/i] show horizontal only. It shows a top-down view, presumably because that's the easiest way to show the 2" zone around the access points in a clear diagram.

Measuring from one point to another means measuring from that first point to the second. That inherently includes all 3 planes. Otherwise, as has been covered before, you're not measuring the actual distance.



[quote=Flexen]I stopped by my local GW store last night and happened to mention the argument on this thread. Without hesitation 3 staff members agreed that the rules say measure from the base of the model.[/quote]

That's 3 staff member who haven't noticed the rule on page 71 that tells us to ignore the base of the skimmer and measure to and from the hull instead... ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741952.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741952.page GMT
The example does [i]not[/i] show horizontal only. It shows a top-down view, presumably because that's the easiest way to show the 2" zone around the access points in a clear diagram.

Measuring from one point to another means measuring from that first point to the second. That inherently includes all 3 planes. Otherwise, as has been covered before, you're not measuring the actual distance.



[quote=Flexen]I stopped by my local GW store last night and happened to mention the argument on this thread. Without hesitation 3 staff members agreed that the rules say measure from the base of the model.[/quote]

That's 3 staff member who haven't noticed the rule on page 71 that tells us to ignore the base of the skimmer and measure to and from the hull instead... [/quote]

I took that rule as to pertain to shooting and not disembarking. On page 71 it says nothing about disembarking troops.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741963.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741963.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741977.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741977.page GMT
The rule is entitled 'Measuring Distances' and refers to measuring distances to and from the vehicle's hull.

Measuring the disemarkation area is measuring a distance.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741980.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741980.page GMT
and the answer might be in the last sentence of that paragraph.

"The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting the skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both."

If assaulting troops can use the base or the hull then disembarking troops should be able to use the same standard.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741986.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741986.page GMT RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations. [/quote]

The RAW is painfully clear, as is the language.

"When the unit disembarks, each model is
deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle’s access
points, and within unit coherency."

Note that the rules do not limit the 2" to the horizontal plane. You may think this is an unintended oversight or that there is an implicit assumption limiting this to horizontal distance, but it doesn't change what the rule [i]actually says[/i]. Once you start down the path of "well the book mostly deals with horizontal distances..." you've strayed away from RAW and right into RAI.

Pretending that it is ambiguous because you are fundamentally opposed to accepting the consequences of the rules as written only confounds things. Accept the poor rules writing for what it is and move on. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741988.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741988.page GMT 40k simply doesn't use a z-axies, or if it does, it was neither envisioned nor included by the games designers.

For starters, there is no mention of the z-axis, except for the sole rule about levels of ruins.

Secondly, it's been a custom to ignore it for at least as long as I've played. When jump packs move 12", we don't measure the length of their rainbow arc, but the distance on the table between the start and the end. When a model climbs a 3" hill, we still allow the rolled Difficult terrain distance horizontally. If firing a template weapon at a ruin level higher than the model, we don't subtract the 3" between levels from it's range. In fact, a model can shoot at full range at models on any level of a ruin, even if actually out of 3-D range.

Now, the problem is that skimmers in general, and the Valkyrie in paricular, become pretty unwieldy. Of course, we could follow the rule which states, under measuring distances, that "A skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting..."

Now, we can choose to change many of these aspects of 40k, or we can assume that the 40k rulebooks totally silence about a z-axis implies, not that skimmers are somehow utterly different and alien from all other models, but that skimmers use a modified "magic cylinder", and that all ranges are measured to where the hull would exist on the table top in a truly 2D game.




[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Danny Internets][quote]I cant see how you can say that RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations. [/quote]

The RAW is painfully clear, as is the language.

"When the unit disembarks, each model is
deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle’s access
points, and within unit coherency."

Note that the rules do not limit the 2" to the horizontal plane. You may think this is an unintended oversight or that there is an implicit assumption limiting this to horizontal distance, but it doesn't change what the rule [i]actually says[/i]. Once you start down the path of "well the book mostly deals with horizontal distances..." you've strayed away from RAW and right into RAI.

Pretending that it is ambiguous because you are fundamentally opposed to accepting the consequences of the rules as written only confounds things. Accept the poor rules writing for what it is and move on. [/quote]

Well, it's pretty clearly an unintended oversight, but don't make the mistake of conflating RAW and literalism. Rules only have meaning in the context of all the language used, and isolating a single phrase in a vacuum is placing semantics over meaning. The overall context of the rules strongly shows a 2D game, and a single instance that possibly counters that needs to be read in the overall context, particularly when the rule, as written, is broken. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741989.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/741989.page GMT RAW and literalism. Rules only have meaning in the context of all the language used, and isolating a single phrase in a vacuum is placing semantics over meaning. The overall context of the rules strongly shows a 2D game, and a single instance that possibly counters that needs to be read in the overall context, particularly when the rule, as written, is broken.[/quote]

Most of the game is played in 2 dimensions, however not all of it is, as is made clear in, for example, the rules for Ruins. But just because [i]most[/i] of the game can be played in 2 dimensions doesn't stand to reason that [i]all[/i] of it can. Therefore, to automatically assume that all rules in the book are limited to 2 dimensions is incorrect in both the literal and RAW senses.

Personally, I chose option B in the poll, however I do so knowing that a rule is consciously being broken. It seems many people refuse to acknowledge even that much.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742026.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742026.page GMT
There's no mention of the x or y axis either. So which way [i]can[/i] models move?

They move across the terrain, up to the allowed distance. That inherently includes moving in whichever direction the movement takes them. They don't [i]need[/i] to specifically mention that this includes vertical distance, because that happens automatically. If the models moves up a hill, then it's moving up the hill.


[quote]Secondly, it's been a custom to ignore it for at least as long as I've played. When jump packs move 12", we don't measure the length of their rainbow arc, but the distance on the table between the start and the end.[/quote]

We don't, becuase it's easier not to, or because the assumption is that intervening obstacles are ignored, rather than moved over. But so far as the rules are concerned, we should. You're supposed to measure the unit's actual movement. The fact that players choose to do it differently has no effect on the actual rules.


[quote] When a model climbs a 3" hill, we still allow the rolled Difficult terrain distance horizontally.[/quote]

I don't. I measure movement distance up hills along the actual terrain.


[quote] If firing a template weapon at a ruin level higher than the model, we don't subtract the 3" between levels from it's range.[/quote]

Of course we don't. You measure the actual range to the actual models you're firing at.



[quote] In fact, a model can shoot at full range at models on any level of a ruin, even if actually out of 3-D range. [/quote]

Based on what?

The rules for measuring Range tell us to measure from the base of the firing model to the base of the target.



[quote]Now, we can choose to change many of these aspects of 40k, or we can assume that the 40k rulebooks totally silence about a z-axis implies, not that skimmers are somehow utterly different and alien from all other models, but that skimmers use a modified "magic cylinder", and that all ranges are measured to where the hull would exist on the table top in a truly 2D game.[/quote]

Or we can come up with some other house rule which would be equally valid so long as our opponent agrees.

The point being made isn't that the rules aren't screwy. It's that measuring from the base is a house rule, not what the rules actually say to do.

I completely agree that the Valkyrie requires house rules to function correctly. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742035.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742035.page GMT RAW and literalism. Rules only have meaning in the context of all the language used, and isolating a single phrase in a vacuum is placing semantics over meaning. The overall context of the rules strongly shows a 2D game, and a single instance that possibly counters that needs to be read in the overall context, particularly when the rule, as written, is broken.[/quote]

I agree context is important, however the book does indeed deal with both vertical and horizontal differences, so in this case literalism and RAW completely overlap.

Most of the game is indeed played in 2 dimensions, however not all of it is, as is made clear in, for example, the rules for Ruins. But just because most of the game can be played in 2 dimensions doesn't stand to reason that all of it can. Therefore, to automatically assume that all rules in the book are limited to 2 dimensions is both incorrect in both the literal and RAW senses.[/quote]

Well, as I stated in my posts, ruins are the ONLY time that verticle distances are used, and they are highly abstracted. I wrote about a number of times when verticle movement is ignored by all players (climbing hills, jump infantry, range into and out of ruins). Even in the ruins rules, the blast rules are 2d (like a battle cannon shell woudln't have a spherical blast...).

So, we see a huge set of rules that strongly imply a horizontal world, a few rules dealing with stacking units in floors (which is really all the ruins rules are), and one oddity that causes massive problems if 40k is 3D. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742037.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742037.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742038.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742038.page GMT
There's no mention of the x or y axis either. So which way [i]can[/i] models move?
[/quote]

Fair enough, but I still think it's telling that at no point in the rules does it mention how to deal with verticle distance. yes, I know GW's rules are exclusionary and all that, but GW knows how people play, and everybody plays it 2D.



[quote][quote]Secondly, it's been a custom to ignore it for at least as long as I've played. When jump packs move 12", we don't measure the length of their rainbow arc, but the distance on the table between the start and the end.[/quote]

We don't, becuase it's easier not to, or because the assumption is that intervening obstacles are ignored, rather than moved over. But so far as the rules are concerned, we should. You're supposed to measure the unit's actual movement. The fact that players choose to do it differently has no effect on the actual rules.[/quote]

Well, at some point don't the rules presuppose basic gaming conventions? I guess not.


[quote][quote] When a model climbs a 3" hill, we still allow the rolled Difficult terrain distance horizontally.[/quote]

I don't. I measure movement distance up hills along the actual terrain.[/quote]

Well, now I know one person who plays that way.

[quote][quote] If firing a template weapon at a ruin level higher than the model, we don't subtract the 3" between levels from it's range.[/quote]

Of course we don't. You measure the actual range to the actual models you're firing at.[/quote]

ACtually, the diagram in the ruins section shows the template simply placed on the highest level, and shows which levels it could hit. See p. 85. It's arguably the best evidence that there is no true z-axis.

[/quote][quote] In fact, a model can shoot at full range at models on any level of a ruin, even if actually out of 3-D range. [/quote]

Based on what?

The rules for measuring Range tell us to measure from the base of the firing model to the base of the target.[/quote]

Again, I guess we've simply all been playing it wrong.

I guess, I'm sitting here thinking: we either need major house rules to make skimmer transports work, change the way we play jump infantry, and most of us need to change the way we measure range and movement into terrain with height; or we could simply accept the evidence that 40k has no vertical axis.

I mean, there's certainly a strong RAW argument for Skimmers being incapable of disembarking troops, but I also think there's a decent RAW argument that there isn't a z-axis. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742066.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742066.page GMT
Well, as I stated in my posts, ruins are the ONLY time that verticle distances are used, and they are highly abstracted. I wrote about a number of times when verticle movement is ignored by all players (climbing hills, jump infantry, range into and out of ruins). Even in the ruins rules, the blast rules are 2d (like a battle cannon shell woudln't have a spherical blast...).

So, we see a huge set of rules that strongly imply a horizontal world, a few rules dealing with stacking units in floors (which is really all the ruins rules are), and one oddity that causes massive problems if 40k is 3D. [/quote]

The rules do not imply a horizontal world, they simply imply that most situations in the game can be dealt with in 2 dimensions, which is true. However, there are also situations that cannot be dealt with in only 2 dimensions, such as when dealing with multi-level Ruins. One example is all it takes to demonstrate that the designers are aware of the existence of the 3rd dimension in Warhammer 40k.

Armed with the knowledge that the designers know the 3rd dimension exists and the literal interpretation of the rule which requires you to take vertical distances into account, the meaning of the rule as it is written is crystal clear.

[quote]and most of us need to change the way we measure range and movement into terrain with height; or we could simply accept the evidence that 40k has no vertical axis.[/quote]

What survey are you using to determine that "most" people play that way? No one in ANY of the gaming groups I've played in has played that way. We've always measured base to base along a direct route, not simply horizontally. Furthermore, I've never seen anyone moving up a hill measure anything but along the terrain, locally or in tournaments.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742069.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742069.page GMT
Seriously, do they need to?

Measuring from point A to point B means measuring from point A to point B, doesn't it?

Surely, without the rules telling us specifically to ignore one plane, we would simply measure it as we would anything else.


[quote]Well, at some point don't the rules presuppose basic gaming conventions? I guess not.[/quote]

Is measuring horizontally only a basic gaming convention? I would think it more something that would depend entirely on the game system.


[quote]Well, now I know one person who plays that way.[/quote]

And I know a few more, since it's how we've always played it around here.


[quote]ACtually, the diagram in the ruins section shows the template simply placed on the highest level, and shows which levels it could hit. See p. 85. It's arguably the best evidence that there is no true z-axis.[/quote]

You said 'template' and I for some reason took it as 'blast'... put it down to lack of sleep.

But frankly, I disagree that the Ruins' template rule implies a lack of consideration of the z axis in the rest of the game. It's a specific rule that applies to templates fired at models in ruins. Nothing more. I would asume that it's there simply because pushing the template through the ruins at the appropriate level is just too hard... in many cases impossible due to the construction of the ruin. So they gave us an easy workaround.



[quote]I guess, I'm sitting here thinking: we either need major house rules to make skimmer transports work, change the way we play jump infantry, and most of us need to change the way we measure range and movement into terrain with height; or we could simply accept the evidence that 40k has no vertical axis. [/quote]

We could, if there was any. I have yet to see it.

Here's another one for you: How many players fire template weapons by placing the tip of the template against the firer's base, rather than just holding it above the model?

From my experience, nobody does that, and nobody ever has. Does that mean the rule is wrong, or simply that people choose to play it differently for convenience?

And does the fact that nobody [i]I've seen[/i] plays it by the rules actually mean that nobody [i]anywhere[/i] plays it by the rules?



[quote]I mean, there's certainly a strong RAW argument for Skimmers being incapable of disembarking troops, but I also think there's a decent RAW argument that there isn't a z-axis. [/quote]

The thing is, either option gives you problems. Assuming that measurement includes all planes causes skimmers a few hassles... and assuming there isn't allows screwy situations like models disembarking into top floor ruins 6 inches above the vehicle they're disembarking from, or assaulting models they can't actually reach because the horizontal distance is nil. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742117.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742117.page GMT
As for the problems of assuming a 2D system, I think there are easy work arounds there. You cant' disembark into the top floor of a ruin because disembarkation is movement, and moving into a ruin requires moving over 3" a floor.

As for assaulting units they can't reach, I'm not sure what you mean, but that's probably the result of a specific terrain quirk that can be house ruled around. if not, let me know what you mean.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742142.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742142.page GMT
No, moving [i]in[/i] a ruin requires 3" per floor.

Disembarking from a vehicle onto the top floor or roof of a ruin is not moving inside the ruin.

However, the same situation can apply to intact buildings, or walls, or cliffs...


[quote]As for assaulting units they can't reach, I'm not sure what you mean, but that's probably the result of a specific terrain quirk that can be house ruled around. if not, let me know what you mean.[/quote]

It's basically the same situation as the disembarkation.


And yes, you can add in house rules to cover whatever situations you like. Such as to allow models to disembark from skimmers... ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742165.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742165.page GMT
So, at least ruins seem to utilize a 3-d world.

Of course, we still have the RAW regarding skimmer bases, in that they're effectively ignored. Bu then, that same paragraph states that distances are measured to the hull except for things like access points, "which all work as normal."

So, yeah, I have to agree that by RAW, the Valk can't embark or disembark. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742177.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742177.page GMT
'As normal' of course meaning 'measure to the access point itself'... Sounds like you figured that, but thought it was worth mentioning for clarity. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742190.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742190.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742198.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742198.page GMT RAW you must measure the actual distance from the access point. Whether that distance is horizontal, vertical or diagonal, it makes no difference. There is no other possible RAW interpretation. Since it is impossible to place a model within 2" of a Valk's access points, unless you are disembarking onto an elevated position, normal disembarkation will usually be impossible.

Now, RAI throws a kink in that, because of the "disembark as normal" line, since it is impossible to actually disembark as normal. I would err on the side of RAI, since specific > general, and the Valk specifically mentions normal disembarkation. This meas that I would allow my IG opponent to disembark onto the table within 2" horizontal to the access point.

However, on the topic of contesting objectives, it is very clear by RAW that the hull of teh vehicle must be within 3" of the objective in order to contest. There is nothing in the IG dex that even hints at a special ability to contest an objective while hovering 5" above it. So, in that case I would definately go with RAW and say that a Valk cannot contest any objective, unless it's hull is within 3" of the marker. That means that the objective itself will usually have to be elevated.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742216.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742216.page GMT
I play using 3d measurement, because it's what's most intuitive.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742226.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742226.page GMT
I really play like that.

Honestly, until coming across the '40K is 2D' argument on one forum or other towards the end of last edition, it had never occured to me to play it any differently... and I've yet to see anything convincing enough from the proponents of the 2D theory to make me seriously consider it.

Even ignoring the rules, playing the game in 3D, to my mind, is the more intuitive way to play it, and far more fitting given the style of the game. It seems wholely counter-intuitive to use a solely top-down view in a game that relies on actual 3D models, 3D terrain and true line of sight.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742267.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742267.page GMT
I really play like that.

Honestly, until coming across the '40K is 2D' argument on one forum or other towards the end of last edition, it had never occured to me to play it any differently... and I've yet to see anything convincing enough from the proponents of the 2D theory to make me seriously consider it.

Even ignoring the rules, playing the game in 3D, to my mind, is the more intuitive way to play it, and far more fitting given the style of the game. It seems wholely counter-intuitive to use a solely top-down view in a game that relies on actual 3D models, 3D terrain and true line of sight.


[/quote]

I think that the "2D plane" idea may stem from the fact that [i]everybody[/i] played 4th ed LoS wrong. They essentially played everything as area terrain with "height levels" required to see past, including vehicles, monstrous creatures, hills, and other things that you should have been using a models-eye-view to shoot past. Playing in that way did effectively create a 2D game system despite the 3D models and terrain. 4th ed LoS I think was GW's biggest rules-fail ever.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742298.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742298.page GMT
If you believe this can happen - then there is no issue here other than being fair and reasonable to the placement of troops. Which can be accomplished by matching the hatches on the figure to the base and marking the base in a clear way to allow accurate measurement.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742313.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742313.page GMT
For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742325.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742325.page GMT
[b]If you believe this can happen [/b]- then there is no issue here other than being fair and reasonable to the placement of troops. Which can be accomplished by matching the hatches on the figure to the base and marking the base in a clear way to allow accurate measurement.[/quote]

40k is not a matter of [b]belief[/b]. It is a matter of rules.

I believe that my little plastic men can fly around the table at a speed of 36" and shoot S9 melta from their eyes, ignoring all LOS, from 72" away....will you let me do it?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742327.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742327.page GMT
For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.[/quote]

Keep in mind, that's how Valks were played in the WD battle report. I think GW meant for skimmers to "land" for embarkation purposes, they just didn't actually write the rules that way.

Like I said earlier, this is going to end up "terminators not having terminator armor" territory, where the RAW says one thing and everybody plays another.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742334.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742334.page GMT Well, that's certainly true. But the reason the "rule is consciosuly being broken" is because the rules [i]are[/i] broken, in ways that pure RAW cannot help resolve. It's possible to come up with all sorts of crazy "problems" with the Valkyrie rules, such as:

-Page 71 clearly states that "skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull." Since the base of a Valkyrie is not transparent, it is clearly (zing!) not the "base" of the model. Therefore, the bottom of the Valkyrie should be considered to be part of the model, and can claim objectives.

-Modifying the logic above, the skimmer's "base" is neither base nor model, meaning that while it cannot claim objectives, there is no way to ever assault the Vaklyrie.

-Nowhere in the rules is it stated that the vertical support for the model is part of the "base." Common English usage also supports the notion that this support is separate from the "base" of an object. Since the rules contain a general presumption in favor of allowing models to be assembled in a variety of ways, it is legal to modify the height of the support.

-As Yakface is fond of pointing out, the rules also allow you to modify the dimensions of the Valkyrie, lowering the crew compartment closer to the ground.

The "solution" to all of these problems is to bring some outside thought into the rules. Whether you call this "context" "the RAI" "house rules" or "cheating" is irrelevant. What is important is the realization that it is [b]impossible to ever play a game of Warhammer 40,000 by only using the RAW.[/b] "Playing by the clear RAW" is a great idea when the RAW is clear, but that's not the case here. Some use of judgment is required.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742337.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742337.page GMT
For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.[/quote]

[quote=Alerian][quote=Flexen]Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

[b]If you believe this can happen [/b]- then there is no issue here other than being fair and reasonable to the placement of troops. Which can be accomplished by matching the hatches on the figure to the base and marking the base in a clear way to allow accurate measurement.[/quote]

40k is not a matter of [b]belief[/b]. It is a matter of rules.

I believe that my little plastic men can fly around the table at a speed of 36" and shoot S9 melta from their eyes, ignoring all LOS, from 72" away....will you let me do it?[/quote]



There are two arguments on this thread.

1- That there is no direct rule that allows Valks to drop troops as per rule book(s).
2- That common sense and keeping in the spirit of the game allows a method to fairly let the vehicle drop the troops.


If you are of the first opinion, there is no need to post further - no one will argue against your point.
If you are of the second opinion, you can explore other ideas and options to share with others.

What more is there to talk about on this subject?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742344.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742344.page GMT RAW cannot help resolve. It's possible to come up with all sorts of crazy "problems" with the Valkyrie rules, such as:

-Page 71 clearly states that "skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull." Since the base of a Valkyrie is not transparent, it is clearly (zing!) not the "base" of the model. Therefore, the bottom of the Valkyrie should be considered to be part of the model, and can claim objectives. [/quote]

While you're just being argumentative to make a point, it should be noted that the rules for the Valkyrie aren't at all broken, just inconvenient. They can still embark and disembark units given appropriately high terrain, in addition to utilizing their Grav Chute rule.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742390.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742390.page GMT
That logic doesn't actually work.

Skimmers have transparent bases. That doesn't automatically mean that anything [i]else[/i] under the skimmer isn't also a base, or that they can't also have a non-transparent base.




[quote]-Nowhere in the rules is it stated that the vertical support for the model is part of the "base."[/quote]

If you want to go down that road, nowhere in the rules is a 'base' ever defined at all. Which is going to lead to far bigger problems than disembarking from Valks.

A flight base has the function of posing the model in a flying position. The stem is a part of the base, since without it, it's not a flight base. It's just a base.




[quote] Since the rules contain a general presumption in favor of allowing models to be assembled in a variety of ways,[/quote]

They do? Where?



[quote]As Yakface is fond of pointing out, the rules also allow you to modify the dimensions of the Valkyrie, lowering the crew compartment closer to the ground.[/quote]

You're out of date on your Yakface quotes. These days, he tends to use a variation on my old argument that the rules in fact don't specifically allow you to modify your models at all. They should be assembled exactly as per their instructions.

There's a general assumption [i]amongst players[/i] that conversions are allowed, which leads to the perceived problems that result from the rules not addressing conversions affecting a model's in-game performance.



[quote]What is important is the realization that it is [b]impossible to ever play a game of Warhammer 40,000 by only using the RAW.[/b][/quote]

You won't get a great deal of argument there.

Where problems occur is when people introduce house rules either without realising that they are in fact house rules, when they introduce them claiming that they are clearly the way the game is supposed to be played regardless of the actual rules, or when they assume that their own house rule is the [i]only[/i] sensible way to play the game.

If you're going to choose to change the rules, at least allow for the possibility that some people may prefer to do it a different way.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742499.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742499.page GMT
That means it it UNCLEAR. Im not trying to say that clear RAW supports valks disembarking normally, only that there is no clear RAW that disalows it and that the RAI is very clear from the wording of the codex entry.

It's a moot point at this stage since all the tournaments I will be playing in are ruling to use a 2D disembarkation but I just wanted to be clear that I am not ignoring the bad rule.

I freely aknowledge its crap, unclear, poorly written in the case of the Valk. But to say its a crappy rule that's not clear if used against your argument, and then refer to that same rule as clear and unambiguous support for your own argument is somewhat hypocritical. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742516.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742516.page GMT
While I agree that you should embark measuring to the base and stuff, correlation does not imply causality.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742519.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742519.page GMT
Do you think grey knight terminators can use their teleporters to get down?

Lets say I wanted my Grey knights to get out and ride on top, can they do that, the model is big enough. I dont think there is a rule that thou shalt not ride on a vehicle... I might be wrong though.

Its Ironic that a transport ship cant transport any troops. Can you imagine an imperial guard regiment loading into a valkarie, the whole squad above this epic battle. When the time comes for them to depart the pilot says, "we are way too high, you can't get out." The trooper then says, "well get lower" to which the pilot replies, "nah, I'm alright this is the perfect altitude for this jet, we are actually saving a lot of gas being at this height."

Can Valkaries only ram other valkaries?

Can models with the melta rule and jumpacks, use a melta on a valk? (e.g. tau crisis suit with a fusion blaster, he ignores height when he is moving, so why not shooting?)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742541.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742541.page GMT
For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.[/quote]

Keep in mind, that's how Valks were played in the WD battle report. I think GW meant for skimmers to "land" for embarkation purposes, they just didn't actually write the rules that way.

[/quote]

I must admit that I gave up on White Dwarf when they stopped adding useful cool stuff (like new army lists) and it turned into a mostly modeling and painting periodical. But if they actually had a battle report that included operation of a Valkyrie would that not be the closest thing that we have to the sanctioned word of GW???

Could someone please elaborate on this GW Battle Report and how the Valkyrie was used? What specific parts of this huge argument does this Battle Report support or refute?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742646.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742646.page GMT
Anyway theres no need for people to get all defensive in this thread. Most people seem to agree they would allow you to disembark from a valk. its not your fault that the rules are poorly written. What some people are trying to stress is that you can't deny that the RAW will not let you disembark to ground level.

It is important to note this because different players are going to make different assumptions how a valk works in a game.

So the most important thing of all is that this issue be discussed among players before a game. If your fielding valks and know about these issues you have a responsibility to inform your opponent of the issue and then come to some agreement before the game about how it works. As can be seen from many of the posts in this thread, even people who are stressing the RAW of the situation seem sensible enough to allow you RAI.

The purpose of this thread then acts as a discussion mostly about the possible house rules that one might present to their opponent. The advantages and disadvantages etc.

If you make a house rule to ignore vertical distance be sure to specify the extent to which this can happen. Simply ignoring vertical distance allows the valk to disembark on ground and also 3 levels up in a building. It shouldn't be able to do both unless all transports can also do that.

Make sure your house rule is clear and fair.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742652.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742652.page GMT Stick to TLOS rules, Deploy from the edge of the base as it is nearly the same width as the hull
anyway and once you have dis-embarked you cannot re-embark.
Now im happy with everything except the last rule.
Other option is to use the VTOL rule from imperial armour.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742658.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742658.page GMT GW???[/quote]

Not really.

Battle reports often have incorrect rules in them. There's a few reasons for that... Sometimes they're just the players being a little confused, sometimes (most often with new armies, it's been mentioned once or twice) they're using an older edit of the codex before release, and sometimes they will add in house rules just for the fun of it and I suspect that they don't always bother to mention as much.

So as a source of rules a WD battle report is next to useless.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742672.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742672.page GMT
Granted I understand that Battle Reports from White Dwarf may have had erroneouse info in the past. But given the fact that we are on page 6 of this thread now and the community seems desperate for guidance on this topic it seems like this might be the closest thing to GW guidance that exits (?).

Anyways, despite the various opinions of the reliability of Battle Reports could someone please give the Salient points of how the Valkyrie was used in the Battle Report and save me from spending $6 on a magazine, that for the most part bores me (all that fantasy stuff just does not do it for me).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742808.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742808.page GMT
Of course they dont bother to really explain it and its just as likley that they ignored RAW in the battle report as they often do because they have always had the position that RAW is irrelevant. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742836.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742836.page GMT
Granted I understand that Battle Reports from White Dwarf may have had erroneouse info in the past. But given the fact that we are on page 6 of this thread now and the community seems desperate for guidance on this topic it seems like this might be the closest thing to GW guidance that exits (?).

Anyways, despite the various opinions of the reliability of Battle Reports could someone please give the Salient points of how the Valkyrie was used in the Battle Report and save me from spending $6 on a magazine, that for the most part bores me (all that fantasy stuff just does not do it for me).[/quote]

Why do you think that the community desperately needs guidance on this? I think that most reasonable people have come to the conclusion that it's something that needs to be discussed with an opponent before a battle, much like Eldritch Storm scattering.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742962.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742962.page GMT
my respose to someone not letting me disembark from my valks would be:

FFS "smacks opponent round head"

while they are reeling on the floor I ge out 2 pieces of cotton, tie them to the heavy bolter sponsons,

instant rappelling lines, the access point is now at ground level

problem solved.

course i could abuse this by tieing 24" rapeeling lines on and declaring an acess point 24" away from the hull, round corners and through their troops, but i'm not a jerk]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742992.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/742992.page GMT FFS "smacks opponent round head"

*Nonsense*

but i'm not a jerk[/quote]

Right...

Thanks for addning nothing to the discussion.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743062.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743062.page GMT
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743201.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743201.page GMT
Granted I understand that Battle Reports from White Dwarf may have had erroneouse info in the past. But given the fact that we are on page 6 of this thread now and the community seems desperate for guidance on this topic it seems like this might be the closest thing to GW guidance that exits (?).

Anyways, despite the various opinions of the reliability of Battle Reports could someone please give the Salient points of how the Valkyrie was used in the Battle Report and save me from spending $6 on a magazine, that for the most part bores me (all that fantasy stuff just does not do it for me).[/quote]

Why do you think that the community desperately needs guidance on this? I think that most reasonable people have come to the conclusion that it's something that needs to be discussed with an opponent before a battle, much like Eldritch Storm scattering.[/quote]
I would not even agree that thats the conclusion-that this has to be discussed. Its a skimmer like every other skimmer in the game. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743284.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743284.page GMT
Granted I understand that Battle Reports from White Dwarf may have had erroneouse info in the past. But given the fact that we are on page 6 of this thread now and the community seems desperate for guidance on this topic it seems like this might be the closest thing to GW guidance that exits (?).

Anyways, despite the various opinions of the reliability of Battle Reports could someone please give the Salient points of how the Valkyrie was used in the Battle Report and save me from spending $6 on a magazine, that for the most part bores me (all that fantasy stuff just does not do it for me).[/quote]

Why do you think that the community desperately needs guidance on this? I think that most reasonable people have come to the conclusion that it's something that needs to be discussed with an opponent before a battle, much like Eldritch Storm scattering.[/quote]
I would not even agree that thats the conclusion-that this has to be discussed. Its a skimmer like every other skimmer in the game. [/quote]

And every other skimmer in the game measures from its hull for contesting objectives, and measures 2" from access points for embarking/disembarking.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743291.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743291.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743293.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743293.page GMT
and every other skimmer in the game didn't get stuck with that flying base either.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743294.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743294.page GMT
and every other skimmer in the game didn't get stuck with that flying base either.[/quote]

Which is why, as I said, this should be discussed with your opponent before each game.

Imagine the following scenario:

Your turn five (possibly the last turn of the game) has just started after a tough, well-fought game. Your opponent has been an exceptional sportsman, even allowing you to go back and move a unit you'd forgotten to move, and reminded you once to assault with a unit that you had forgotten. The assault cost him his important HQ (lets say a farseer).

Your opponent has two troops on objectives, and you only have one troop on an objective. You move your valkyrie so that its base is within 3" of one of his objectives, but the hull of the valkyrie is still not within the 3".

At the end of the turn, you roll a 2, and the game is over.

You say, "Man, that was a great game, looks like a tie."

Your opponent says, "why?"

You say, "My valkyrie is contesting that objective..."

Your opponent says, "No, it's not within 3". If I'd known you wanted to play that way I would have focused more firepower at it."

What do you say next? Your opponent is well within the rules, and you'd never discussed it ahead of time.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743307.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743307.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743341.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743341.page GMT RAW, th ehull is not within 3" of teh objective, which the rules say it has to be. Alos, w/o talking to oyur opponent beforehand, you have no right to be deogatory of him, since he is simply following the rules.

Also, don't forget, the Valk can contest objectives in higher levles of ruins than a normal vehicle, thanks to that flying base. You can't have it both ways.

The tall flying stand is a two-edged sword. That base will put the model out of meltagun 1/2 range far more often than not (thanks to being 5" tall), so people should accept the penalties that go with such a benefit. It seems to me that everyone supportting using the base for objective grabbing measurements want all of the benefits of the new model, without any of the penalties.

Like I said before, I would have no problem letting someone disembark normally from the Valk, because RAI seem to allow this, despite RAW. However, there is nothing in the IG dex that even hints that you can measure from its base for objective contesting. It funtions like any other skimmer, which means measuring from the hull. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743367.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743367.page GMT We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743380.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743380.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743385.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743385.page GMT
From closest point to closest point, as that would be the line "between" the two objects.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743399.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743399.page GMT We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard. [/quote]

Those are perfectly fine house rules, but because they are that and only that, they should be discussed with your opponent before the game, not during.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743435.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743435.page GMT We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard. [/quote]

Those are perfectly fine house rules, but because they are that and only that, they should be discussed with your opponent before the game, not during.[/quote]

Playing like that fundamentally changes the strategy of placing objectives. I have placed objectives in the top floor of a ruins before to prevent my opponents bikers from being able to get to them. Did he assume that we played by different rules because his bikes couldn't capture the objective? No... he tabled me ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743443.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743443.page GMT We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard. [/quote]

No offense intended, but then you are playing solely by house rules.

40k is played in 3d, not 2d. This is true not only with movement, but with TLOS and measuring range as well.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743451.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743451.page GMT Playing like that fundamentally changes the strategy of placing objectives. I have placed objectives in the top floor of a ruins before to prevent my opponents bikers from being able to get to them. Did he assume that we played by different rules because his bikes couldn't capture the objective? No... he tabled me [/quote]

I saw someone do this to an opponent who only had Hormagaunts as Troops. Needless to say, the Tyranid player lost.

But, yeah, it's an extremely powerful strategy versus Nob biker lists.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743464.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/743464.page GMT IG player yesterday. Not during a game, just in a discussion about rules for something similar.

The answer I got was "it was marketed as a scenic base, so yes they can".

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744033.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744033.page GMT
[quote]pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

[b]A model is considered to occupy the area of its base[/b], so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.[/quote]

Area is a 2 dimensional description, not 3. Since the base is on the ground... and this is a model supplied with a base... it occupies this area. Thus the vertical access is ignored. It does not say you occupy the volume of your base at it's intended height.

With the supposition that the model occupies this area you can then measure from this area as you where on the ground for all purposes and intents.

If you wish to argue that the models stick IS part of the area of its base this is fine too b/c we can't disregard the actual black part and the model occupies the entire space at once placing it close enough to the group for embarking and disembarking.... ramming.... etc.


On page 71 it says that modesl, as normal vehicles distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull. However, pg 3 doesn't say that you ignore the base on a model if it is a vehicle... only that you use the hull if the model DOES NOT COME WITH A BASE.

So even if you can't remove the flying stand during play it does not say the model can't occupy the space (any of it) that is described by it's base.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744041.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744041.page GMT
[quote]pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

[b]A model is considered to occupy the area of its base[/b], so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.[/quote]

Area is a 2 dimensional description, not 3. Since the base is on the ground... and this is a model supplied with a base... it occupies this area. Thus the vertical access is ignored. It does not say you occupy the volume of your base at it's intended height.

With the supposition that the model occupies this area you can then measure from this area as you where on the ground for all purposes and intents.

If you wish to argue that the models stick IS part of the area of its base this is fine too b/c we can't disregard the actual black part and the model occupies the entire space at once placing it close enough to the group for embarking and disembarking.... ramming.... etc.


On page 71 it says that modesl, as normal vehicles distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull. However, pg 3 doesn't say that you ignore the base on a model if it is a vehicle... only that you use the hull if the model DOES NOT COME WITH A BASE.

So even if you can't remove the flying stand during play it does not say the model can't occupy the space (any of it) that is described by it's base.



[/quote]

The page 71 rules clearly supercede the page three rules. The more-specific rules for skimmers are used rather than the less-specific rules used for other models. That's just the way the rulebook works, or otherwise jump infantry couldn't move 12" in the movement phase, cavalry couldn't assault 12", etc.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744127.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744127.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744134.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744134.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744142.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744142.page GMT
[quote]pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

[b]A model is considered to occupy the area of its base[/b], so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.[/quote]

Area is a 2 dimensional description, not 3. Since the base is on the ground... and this is a model supplied with a base... it occupies this area. Thus the vertical access is ignored. It does not say you occupy the volume of your base at it's intended height. [/quote]

Page 56: "As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the
normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base
cannot be used. [b]Instead, for distances involving a
vehicle, measure to or from their hull[/b] (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other
decorative elements)."

So much for that.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744144.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744144.page GMT
Thanks. : D]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744233.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744233.page GMT This means that no player may field an Ironclad Dreadnaught or a Vendetta because GW has not yet released specific models for those units, and conversions are illegal. This actually supports my larger point, as it shows how impossible it is to play Warhammer without using at least some "soft rules."

[quote=insaniak]Where problems occur is when people introduce house rules either without realising that they are in fact house rules, when they introduce them claiming that they are clearly the way the game is supposed to be played regardless of the actual rules, or when they assume that their own house rule is the only sensible way to play the game.

If you're going to choose to change the rules, at least allow for the possibility that some people may prefer to do it a different way.[/quote]
I freely agree that the Valkyrie is a little wonky from a rules standpoint, as it is not entirely clear by strict RAW how it should be played. This creates a gray area, and I'm fine acknowledging that some players may not be happy with the way most players resolve the Vaklyrie rules. After all, I'm not happy with the majority rule on some 40k gray areas.

Where I find this thought exercise objectionable is if we take the step from acknowledging "the rules are unclear" to holding that "therefore all interpretations are equally valid." I hope that everyone in this thread would agree that disallowing all conversions is not an "equally valid" alternative to allowing them. I believe that the same logic that supports allowing conversions also should allow the Valkyrie to function as any other skimmer.

I don't think it's appropriate to look to common sense to solve a whole host of 40k problems, and then to cling to a controversial and debatable "pure RAW" interpretation to nerf a unit in your opponent's army.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744289.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744289.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744327.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744327.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744328.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744328.page GMT
This is my preferred answer of how to handle a Valkyrie. This means treating it's height the average skimmer height though, for all measurements.

I think that is completely fair. I'm not ok with players that want to disregard the height of the base that came with the model for some things, but not others. Feel free to embark/disembark on the ground as normal and contest, but I am going to then measure my ranges to shoot you as if you were 2" off the ground (or whatever average skimmer base height is).

It's a skimmer, so treat it identically to the average skimmer in the game. Until GW changes the rules for the Valkyrie, I think this is the best compromise available. IG players should recognize it is a compromise though, not a requirement that their opponent agree to it. They would certainly be justified in saying they didn't want to play someone that won't agree to it, but get it agreed on before the game. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744343.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744343.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744357.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744357.page GMT GW has not yet released specific models for those units, and conversions are illegal. This actually supports my larger point, as it shows how impossible it is to play Warhammer without using at least some "soft rules."[/quote]

It's not impossible to play the game without those two units.



[quote=insaniak]Where I find this thought exercise objectionable is if we take the step from acknowledging "the rules are unclear" to holding that "therefore all interpretations are equally valid."[/quote]

So how do you decide which ones [i]are[/i] valid?

If the rules are unclear, it's down to your personal interpretation of what the rules might be intended to mean. How can you honestly say your interpretation in that case is any more valid than anyone else's? Just because your version of the rule makes the most sense to you, that doesn't mean that it makes the most sense to anyone else.


[quote] I hope that everyone in this thread would agree that disallowing all conversions is not an "equally valid" alternative to allowing them.[/quote]

Of course it is.

I would never advocate it, but I can certainly see an argument for only allowing current, stock GW models, for those who want to make sure that their game conforms as closely as possible to the rules as written. Yes, that means that there are some units or options that can not currently be used. But if players are happy to play that way, that's their choice.

I've come across quite few players who objected to scratch-built versions of vehicles that have existing GW models, particularly when the scratch-build has different dimensions. It's not a big jump from there to disallowing anything that alters the proportions of GW models.


[quote]I don't think it's appropriate to look to common sense to solve a whole host of 40k problems, and then to cling to a controversial and debatable "pure RAW" interpretation to nerf a unit in your opponent's army.[/quote]

Who was doing that?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744378.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744378.page GMT
Jack]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744382.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744382.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744389.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744389.page GMT
It did.

It's been covered a few times over the last few years. Often in 4th edition as an addendum to the 'fitting all your Necrons within 2" of the Monolith's door' discussion...


[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Frazzled]Just thumbnailing from memory but my stands are about two inches tall (it has two sets of differing height stands actually with one being an inch tall). [/quote]

All of the regular stands are less than 2" tall. I gave the measurements earlier in the thread ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744417.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744417.page GMT GW has not yet released specific models for those units, and conversions are illegal. This actually supports my larger point, as it shows how impossible it is to play Warhammer without using at least some "soft rules."[/quote]

It's not impossible to play the game without those two units.[/quote]It is if you are playing Vulture Cavalry or 6 IronClad MOTF lists. Why make rules for models that you HAVE to covert (Such as Several Bike IC's) if they are suddenly illegal?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744572.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744572.page GMT MOTF lists. Why make rules for models that you HAVE to covert (Such as Several Bike IC's) if they are suddenly illegal?[/quote]

You don't have to convert them. You can simply choose to not use them until GW gets around to releasing the actual models.


I feel I should point out here that I'm not actually arguing that conversions should not be allowed. GW obviously consider them a large part of the 'GW hobby'... I was merely responding to the argument that converting is a valid way to get around rules that you don't like. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744622.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744667.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744667.page GMT


It refers to the Citadel models that are used to play the game. Nowhere does it specifically allow you to [i]modify[/i] those models.

It's been [i]assumed[/i] since RT that it was acceptable, because GW promotes modeling so much as a part of the hobby. But it's not a rule. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744681.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744681.page GMT


It refers to the Citadel models that are used to play the game. Nowhere does it specifically allow you to [i]modify[/i] those models.

It's been [i]assumed[/i] since RT that it was acceptable, because GW promotes modeling so much as a part of the hobby. But it's not a rule. [/quote]

I see what you're doing here, but there's also a big art section in the back of the Big rulebook that specifically talks about converting your minis ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744690.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744690.page GMT
There's also a few mentions throughout the book of modifying the rules to suit yourself.

The fact that the book has a modeling section doesn't automatically mean that conversion is a part of the rules. It simply means that they like to promote modeling in the same way that they like to promote that you can alter the game rules to suit yourself.

If you're talking about the actual, unmodified rules of the game, then for converting the models used for the game to be acceptable, you need a rule that allows it. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744696.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744696.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744748.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744748.page GMT
Hey now, you're stepping into the "rules don't tell me I can't" fallacy.

Insaniak, I agree with you, and I can see that you're trying to play devil's advocate.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744749.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744749.page GMT
The Rules say you may Play with Citadel Miniatures. As it does not Specify whether that Means Stock Unconverted Miniatures or Miniatures made from Citadel Parts (which all stock models are anyway as you have to glue them together) It has to mean all Citadel Miniatures, including those converted from Citadel Miniature Parts.

This is what the rules tell us CAN be done.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744769.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/744769.page GMT
Right. That means Citadel miniatures. Not Citadel miniatures that have been modified. If they've been modified, they're no longer Citadel miniatures... they're something new that has been made from Citadel miniature parts.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745038.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745038.page GMT
Right. That means Citadel miniatures. Not Citadel miniatures that have been modified. If they've been modified, they're no longer Citadel miniatures... they're something new that has been made from Citadel miniature parts.[/quote]Ok so that Chaplain that you have painted. It's been modified hasn't it? After all the paint didn't come with the model did it?

Or How about that Tactical Marine there who's arm is dramatically posed. Surely that has also been modified. After all, the arm didn't come dramatically posed did it? You had to modify the Model by using Glue and such.

Or how about Eldar Guardians.... I'll just leave it at that -Shakes fist-

Get over yourself. Every single model anyone ever plays with is technicality a conversion, just one using citadel miniatures and bits from such.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745089.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745089.page GMT
When you've finished stamping your foot, take a step back and think about what you're actually getting upset about here.

My point is not that converting shouldn't be allowed. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

The point is simply that converting a model in order to get around a given rule is in essence no different to creating a house rule to get around a given rule.

Neither is specifically allowed by the rules, neither should be abused... but both are suggested by Games Workshop as ways to enhance your gaming experience.

Not as ways to abuse the rules to suit yourself. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745106.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745106.page GMT GW or FW OR it's something that you yourself have made, ie greenstuff.

However: most of them it is also only a warning or minor infraction if you don't. Hence my Cadian Female Squats are at worst only a minor infraction since they 'count as' Cadian guardsmen. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745277.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745277.page GMT
Wouldn't a flying transport either a) land completely to disembark or b) do a grav chute insertion?

It seems only skimmers should be able to disembark safely at slower speeds from a fluff viewpoint.

Anyway I say this purely from a fluff perspective with no regard to gameplay balance. It really is amazing GW didn't discover all this during playtesting. Since the Valkyrie was originally a flier they should of put some more effort into its rules. Like the ability to land and take off for example.

With regards to its other issues, some of them are advantages and others disadvantages. For example having to measure everything to it on an angle decreases range a bit (can hurt melta weapons looking for that half range). Also it can only be assaulted by its base which is smaller than its hull. Maybe these advantages offset some of the disadvantages.[/quote]

For rules purposes, they made it into a fast skimmer, so maybe it is supposed to be a vert takeoff/landing vehicle]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745422.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745422.page GMT

Seriously that is a weak strawman argument. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745614.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745614.page GMT

Seriously that is a weak strawman argument. [/quote]

No, you noob, that would be the police that say you can't smash somebody else's property. As far as Waaaaaaagh!'s point, I agree, adding paint, or glue, or any position that isn't attached to the sprue and unpainted, would be a modification to the model, thus it must be allowed.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745764.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745764.page GMT GW or FW OR it's something that you yourself have made, ie greenstuff.

However: most of them it is also only a warning or minor infraction if you don't. Hence my Cadian Female Squats are at worst only a minor infraction since they 'count as' Cadian guardsmen. [/quote]

Dunno, had a lot of people complain that their IG with [url=http://www.pig-iron-productions.com/order.htm#]Pig Iron[/url] heads (the cool looking ones with gas masks like the Krieg models - but a lot cheaper, are not being allowed in GW stores. IIRC, a head on a model is a lot less than 50%, so be careful what you do to your minis - GW may not let you play in tourney with them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745796.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745796.page GMT
Assembling the model as per instructions is not a modification.

GW's models come with an assembly guide, and the codexes have painting guides.


Frankly, after all of the complaints over the last few years over the fact that the rules can be abused through 'creative' modeling, I find it a little surprising that people would take exception to the fact that it's not actually true...

But this conversation's turned a little too silly for my taste, and all we're doing here is bashing a point into the ground that was adequately covered a while back.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745803.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745803.page GMT IMO.

I tend to mostly game at GW Battle Bunker and I can now see that if a player starts to argue about a Valk deploying troops etc. utilizing the transport rules, one can call over a red or black shirt and I have no doubt what way they will rule (in my circle of gamers we tend to treat them as referees when necessary--yes, I know they are not always very bright ). I see GT's etc. following suit at least until a real FAQ comes ouut.

I did briefly mention this controversy to a GW guy and his solution seemed ok with me. You could either mount the model on the base without the stand (per RAW) or you could just do as they did in the WD battle report and not bother with the base at all until you need one, like when someone gets within assault range etc.

Thanks for all of your inputs, they made for good entertaining reading but I can now read the writing on the wall regarding the future of Valkyries. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745982.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745982.page GMT IMO.

I tend to mostly game at GW Battle Bunker and I can now see that if a player starts to argue about a Valk deploying troops etc. utilizing the transport rules, one can call over a red or black shirt and I have no doubt what way they will rule (in my circle of gamers we tend to treat them as referees when necessary--yes, I know they are not always very bright ). I see GT's etc. following suit at least until a real FAQ comes ouut.

I did briefly mention this controversy to a GW guy and his solution seemed ok with me. You could either mount the model on the base without the stand (per RAW) or you could just do as they did in the WD battle report and not bother with the base at all until you need one, like when someone gets within assault range etc.

Thanks for all of your inputs, they made for good entertaining reading but I can now read the writing on the wall regarding the future of Valkyries. [/quote]

LOL...other than saying "Well, my friend says that it works this way...", going by WD battle reports is about the worst thing you can do to back up a rules arguement. GW is famous for how many rules they break in WD battle reports, so I would not try to use them as proof for any rules discussion.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745995.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/745995.page GMT WD article...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/746190.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/746190.page GMT
If he wants the hull to count, it wont capture objectives on its stand but true measure for range weapons like meltaguns.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/746749.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/746749.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/750586.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/750586.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/750592.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/750592.page GMT
When it's imobilized you just keep the base on and assume that, it's on the ground, and still measure everything from the base.

Most people glue their skimmer base on all their skimmers, or else your models tend to break and your skimmer bases as well, and with the valkyire it's kind of a must, or your nicely painted model is going to be crashing into the table quite often.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751816.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751816.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751926.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751926.page GMT RAW guy (see I didn't say anal at all ). In the real world to clarify no issue beforehand, if your opponent stated "due to the base height there's been some issue about distances, deployment etc. As this is a skimmer and to avoid problems we're going to use this mark (mark 1.5 in or whatever the height of a standard skimer base is) for height purposes." Would that work for you as a RAW player, or would I have to get out the axe... ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751946.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751946.page GMT
Necron destroyers don't have hulls, how would you measure this? There's a few exceptions to this rule and GW's rules aren't perfect, that's why faqs exist.

Also, valkries are some of the tallest, and biggest models in the game, and with this you run into a lot of problems, such as.

When measuring up, do you count the height of the valkyire as 3 inches like you would each level of terrian, or would you measure the full 5-6 inches up?

If the ladder is true, than it's redicilous because of the fact a melta gun would almost never get it's 2d6 armor pen vs a valkyire because of the fact it's around 5-6 up off the table.

Why do the troops get to make an exception to the rule when disembarking? They should have to move 5-6 inches down, which makes it impossible to disembark, and stay within 2 inches of the exits.

So, like a necron destroyer, I say make everything easy and measure from the base for everything.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751955.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751955.page GMT
2) It says hull, period. It is a problem yes, but only so much. We got a player around here who just puts his bojectives higher so he can reach it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751963.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751963.page GMT RAW guy (see I didn't say anal at all ). In the real world to clarify no issue beforehand, if your opponent stated "due to the base height there's been some issue about distances, deployment etc. As this is a skimmer and to avoid problems we're going to use this mark (mark 1.5 in or whatever the height of a standard skimer base is) for height purposes." Would that work for you as a RAW player, or would I have to get out the axe... [/quote]You would have to get out the Axe and Chop down the base!

Personaly, I feel that the base came with it for a reason. It has many Advantages, and some disadvantages. I don't see why people are getting so buthurt about claiming objectives on the ground. I don't get buthurt when my Rhinos can't claim objectives 6" up do I?

However, by the RaW, you may alter the RaW by mutual agreement. While I would not like it (play your army with all the inherent advantages and disadvantages, don;t try to mess about with it to get an edge) I wouldn't be too fussed either way. I'd just make sure I kill it first to make you cry [quote=Kreedos][quote]Except the rules for Skimmers clearly state that you measure everything to and from the Hull, not the base. The base is there only to stand the model up and to allow it to be assaulted[/quote]

Necron destroyers don't have hulls, how would you measure this? There's a few exceptions to this rule and GW's rules aren't perfect, that's why faqs exist.[/quote]Necron Destoyers are Jetbikes, not Skimmers. Therefore you measure to the base, because that is what the rules for Jetbikes tell us to do. We measure to the Hull for Skimmers because that is what the rules tell us to do. Please, double check the rules before posting in a Rules debate!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751966.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751966.page GMT FW, and still can be used as a flyer in the abortion that is Apocalypse. the hash mark idea has been suggested here and I have used it with conversions in the past to be as conservative as the original vehicle/creature.

The only time I've seen objective in the air is a building so its a moot point for base height for me. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751974.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751974.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751988.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/751988.page GMT
I just double checked this and you're right, I thought they were skimmers that moved like jet bikes.

However this [quote]Please, double check the rules before posting in a Rules debate![/quote] is unessessary to state. The confusion between jet bikes and skimmers are an easy mistake to make, and I don't appreciate the insulting comment.

However, how about this one.

Monoliths don't come with a stand unless you special order it, get it with the 2 pack that isn't offered anymore, or you custom make your own.

From what I've heard monoliths block line of sight, because of this fact, but when measuring to fire at a monolith, would you pretend that that it was something like 2 to 3 inches in the air, or is this only true when it's on base?

This is kind of the same thing where the interpertation of height comes into play.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752009.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752009.page GMT RAW player, or would I have to get out the axe... [/quote]

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but have to say that of the various possible solutions to the problem, this is the one that I would object to.

I'd be happy to allow you to measure deployment and objectives horizontally. I'd be happy to allow you to deploy as close as possible to the vehicle and call it good enough. I'd be happy to allow you to measure from the base. And I wouldn't even blink if you just shortened the base to the same height as the other skimmer bases.

But in a game that relies on the actual, physical positions of the models for LOS purposes, I can't even begin to express how much I dislike the practice of pretending that [i]this[/i] model here is somewhere or something it's not. It's a 'solution' that is just asking for trouble, as you find yourself drawing LOS to empty air and trying to agree with your opponent as to whether or not the model would actually be there or not in its imaginary position.

But maybe that's just me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752011.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752011.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752019.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752019.page GMT No problem =), Thanks.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752021.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752021.page GMT
However, how about this one.

Monoliths don't come with a stand unless you special order it, get it with the 2 pack that isn't offered anymore, or you custom make your own.

From what I've heard monoliths block line of sight, because of this fact, but when measuring to fire at a monolith, would you pretend that that it was something like 2 to 3 inches in the air, or is this only true when it's on base?

This is kind of the same thing where the interpertation of height comes into play.[/quote]

If they Monolith doesn't come with a base then, no one is obliged to use one, however since it is a skimmer you may use one.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752022.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752022.page GMT
Everything blocks LOS, so yes, that's correct.



[quote] because of this fact, but when measuring to fire at a monolith, would you pretend that that it was something like 2 to 3 inches in the air, or is this only true when it's on base?[/quote]

LOS in 40K uses the actual, physical placement of the model. If the monolith is sitting on the table, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. If it's on a flight stand, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. The rules never tell you to pretend that the model is somewhere that it's not.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752028.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752028.page GMT
[quote]
LOS in 40K uses the actual, physical placement of the model. If the monolith is sitting on the table, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. If it's on a flight stand, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. The rules never tell you to pretend that the model is somewhere that it's not.[/quote]

Good point. I stand corrected.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752288.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/752288.page GMT RAW player, or would I have to get out the axe... [/quote]

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but have to say that of the various possible solutions to the problem, this is the one that I would object to.

I'd be happy to allow you to measure deployment and objectives horizontally. I'd be happy to allow you to deploy as close as possible to the vehicle and call it good enough. I'd be happy to allow you to measure from the base. And I wouldn't even blink if you just shortened the base to the same height as the other skimmer bases.

But in a game that relies on the actual, physical positions of the models for LOS purposes, I can't even begin to express how much I dislike the practice of pretending that [i]this[/i] model here is somewhere or something it's not. It's a 'solution' that is just asking for trouble, as you find yourself drawing LOS to empty air and trying to agree with your opponent as to whether or not the model would actually be there or not in its imaginary position.

But maybe that's just me.[/quote]

This is very OT, but why? I've done such in the past to avoid the "crouching tiger wraithlord" controversy with conversions. Usually an banner or stand in is at the point where the official model would have a weapon or whatever. My opponents have always been happy with the result as I was clearly not trying to cheat them. Indeed my war altar stand in for a defiler was in the IW list garnering best sportsman.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/753240.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/753240.page GMT
I just don't see the point of having a model there at all if you're just going to spend the whole game imagining that it's somewhere else.

Sure, it's not that difficult in most situations... but it is creating a ready source of arguments, as both players have to agree as to whether a given point in empty air actually contains part of the virtual model or not.

And there are much easier alternatives. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/753256.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/753256.page GMT
Still not good. Saw the pole it comes with in half and have two posts supporting the valk, bringing it closer to the ground and at the same time this makes it harder to accidentally knock over. Its still on the base.

LAME]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754716.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754716.page GMT
Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754732.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754732.page GMT
Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?[/quote]Of course, just model it on a Ball joint and... wait no that doesn't work.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754756.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754756.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754884.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754884.page GMT
Still not good. Saw the pole it comes with in half and have two posts supporting the valk, bringing it closer to the ground and at the same time this makes it harder to accidentally knock over. Its still on the base.

LAME[/quote]

It's not lame at all.

If my IG opponent thinks that his skimmer should contest ground level objectives when his hull is 5" in the air, or that he should be able to embark/disembark troops that are 4" lower than his hull, because Valk's can "land", thus picking the height he wants his skimmer to be at, then...

I would say, fine...then my Waveserpent can claim objectives that are 6"up in ruins and may disembark troops into the top level of that ruin. After all, it is a skimmer, just like the Valk, so obviously I too should be able pick the height I want at which I want it to be located. Or, would you like it better if I too put my skimmer on a ball joint so that I can simply angle it up to reach the higher levels of ruins and buildings?

Face it, whether you like it or not, all models have advantages and disadvantages. Boo-hoo, the Valk is too far off the ground to capture ground level objectives...so what? It can capture objectives that are placed higher than other any other vehicle can reach, and it is almost completely out of meltagun range, just by being on its base.

You gotta take the good with the bad, without complaining about it. Anything else is showing poor sportsmanship.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754935.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/754935.page GMT
Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?[/quote]

Not a good logical construction. According to the RAW, the skimmer couldn't take that objective either. It would hover above it, just like it hovers above the ground.

Example #1: Ground level objective: Rhino can contest it, other skimmers can contest it, Valk can't.

Example #2: Building level objective 'x' inches off the ground: Rhino can't contest it, and neither can the Valk.

Same-same.

What I get out of this is that GW miniature designers made a sturdier, more stable flying base that might have some application for flyers in Apoc from an aesthetic point of view and some players are using it to punish IG players for daring to use it. I hate to sound like the dreaded "fluff-Nazi", but could somebody give me a good description/explanation for why a Wave Serpent can contest an objective, but a Valkyrie can't. Paint the picture for me.

And please, For the Love of All Mankind, do not say "Cause the Rulebook says it doesn't".

P.S. For the record: I do not own, use or model any Valkyries or Vultures. I got no agenda, folks.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755146.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755146.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755155.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755155.page GMT
Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?[/quote]
BLAH BLAH BLAH WAFFLE[/quote]You DO realise you measure to and from the hull, and that there is a 3" bubble to contest?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755158.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755158.page GMT
Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?[/quote]
BLAH BLAH BLAH WAFFLE[/quote]You DO realise you measure to and from the hull, and that there is a 3" bubble to contest?[/quote]

Wow. Nice Quote. Way to be an adult.

We all know that 90% of tournament objectives are on the ground level. Denying the Valkyrie the ability to contest objectives (or even disembarking it's transported troops (?)) because it happens to be the first skimmer to be produced with that base is lame, opportunistic and a perversion of the spirit of the game. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Am I ing Waffling now?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755168.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755168.page GMT
In many ways, the shape of a model determines what it can do in the game. This is common among *all* models. For the Valkyrie to be the [i]one[/i] model that ignores the limitations based on the location of its hull... [i]that[/i] would be a perversion of the rules.

I had some guys tell me that placing objectives in hard-to-reach places is against the "spirit of the game." IMO "spirit of the game" is what people say when they don't have any actual rules to stand on, but feel passionate about their argument.

If I were a guard player with valkyries, I would simply make sure to place the objectives that I have control over in places that are advantageous to me: the tops of hills, ruins, etc.

It's called strategy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755190.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755190.page GMT
Also, I am ashamed of myself. All the Time.
I also Like Pancakes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755193.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755193.page GMT
Also, I am ashamed of myself. All the Time.
I also Like Pancakes.[/quote]

Typical Troll is Typical.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755209.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755209.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755218.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755218.page GMT
Disclaimer for the Mods: No, I am not trying to be rude, I am making an observation based on Past comments such as "Typical Troll is Typical" and the avoidance of answering the actual question.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755225.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755225.page GMT LSS?

MC ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755288.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755288.page GMT LSS?

MC [/quote]

LSSs aren't on 5" tall bases.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755306.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755306.page GMT LSS?

MC [/quote]

LSSs aren't on 5" tall bases.[/quote]

Only because the Valkyrie is the newest model with a new style base. The RAI's alleging a difference are conveniently glossing over that. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755473.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755473.page GMT LSS?

MC [/quote]

LSSs aren't on 5" tall bases.[/quote]

Only because the Valkyrie is the newest model with a new style base. The RAI's alleging a difference are conveniently glossing over that. [/quote]

There are lots of indicators that help form the opinion that the RAI of the Valkyrie is that it can swoop down at will, as the fluff makes it a VTOL aircraft. Not a single one of us knows for certain what the intent was of the Valkyrie as adapted to non Apocalypse though.

People need to accept the fact that not all players have any interest in guessing what the rules were meant to be, when the rules as written work perfectly well. You have some disadvantages, and some advantages in trade. Just because you don't like it doesn't obligate me to allow a house rule to suit your opinion of RAI. Even if I shared that opinion, the current rules work fine. Adapt and play them.

If you want a custom Valkyrie rule, sure thing. Hang on a sec while I break out my Deathwing army, because I'm using the house rule that I can use 5th edition wargear rules in trade for agreeing to use your Valkyrie house rule. See how this works?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755593.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755593.page GMT
Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?[/quote]
BLAH BLAH BLAH WAFFLE[/quote]You DO realise you measure to and from the hull, and that there is a 3" bubble to contest?[/quote]

Wow. Nice Quote. Way to be an adult.

We all know that 90% of tournament objectives are on the ground level. Denying the Valkyrie the ability to contest objectives (or even disembarking it's transported troops (?)) because it happens to be the first skimmer to be produced with that base is lame, opportunistic and a perversion of the spirit of the game. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Am I ing Waffling now?[/quote]

Um...What kinda tournaments do you play at? Under the 5th edition missions you always get to place at least half of the objectives. While I haven't ever been to a GT I would asume they would do the same. Since you get to place at least half you can draw as long as you hold yours. And given what an army of these can do taking thiers will only be hard depending on thier army.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755595.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755595.page GMT LSS?

MC [/quote]

LSSs aren't on 5" tall bases.[/quote]

Only because the Valkyrie is the newest model with a new style base. The RAI's alleging a difference are conveniently glossing over that. [/quote]

There are lots of indicators that help form the opinion that the RAI of the Valkyrie is that it can swoop down at will, as the fluff makes it a VTOL aircraft. Not a single one of us knows for certain what the intent was of the Valkyrie as adapted to non Apocalypse though.

People need to accept the fact that not all players have any interest in guessing what the rules were meant to be, when the rules as written work perfectly well. You have some disadvantages, and some advantages in trade. Just because you don't like it doesn't obligate me to allow a house rule to suit your opinion of RAI. Even if I shared that opinion, the current rules work fine. Adapt and play them.

If you want a custom Valkyrie rule, sure thing. Hang on a sec while I break out my Deathwing army, because I'm using the house rule that I can use 5th edition wargear rules in trade for agreeing to use your Valkyrie house rule. See how this works?[/quote]

Respectfully you're inferring all of that. I am noting it says Skimmer Fast. It has a new style base, which is the SOLE casue of the difficulty. Fluff etc and rules from Apocalypse are not relevant to my point. GW through in a flyer base because its cool and they already had the base (and maybe because the model is physically too big for the standard skimmer base, its a big mother).

Indeed The RAI crowd could be themselves accused of inferring great things.
As noted, for those who have the FW version with no base provided, what then? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755612.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755612.page GMT FW version with no base provided, what then? [/quote]Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755614.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755614.page GMT (goes off and sulks)

(of course couldn't everyone else with Valks just take their's off the base at that point)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755622.page GMT 2d6 for armor pen.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755623.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755623.page GMT 2d6 for armor pen.[/quote]
I don't think the "pro rhino" crowd to use your vernacular have any issue with that, as thats what you could do against every other skimmer in the game.
I think the moral of the story is use the lower height standard base and everyone's on the same page. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755626.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755626.page GMT FW version with no base provided, what then? [/quote]Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.[/quote]

Actually, the answer is that a proxy, or counts as, is treated in all respects like the model it is intended to be. This means treating your FW Valkyrie with no base as if it was at the same height as the official one.

You were fine to treat it as being on the ground until GW came out with the official one that has an official height it needs to be treated as. Now that the official one is out, you are just proxying and should follow the proxy rules.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755647.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755647.page GMT FW version with no base provided, what then? [/quote]Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.[/quote]

Actually, the answer is that a proxy, or counts as, is treated in all respects like the model it is intended to be. This means treating your FW Valkyrie with no base as if it was at the same height as the official one.

You were fine to treat it as being on the ground until GW came out with the official one that has an official height it needs to be treated as. Now that the official one is out, you are just proxying and should follow the proxy rules.[/quote]


A valkyrie is a proxy for a valkyrie, but not any more, now its just a valkyrie?

Blink. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755661.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755661.page GMT
Indeed The RAI crowd could be themselves accused of inferring great things. [/quote]
None of that was inferred actually, it is based on what people in this thread has specifically stated, and discussions with folks at my local store.

It does indeed say Skimmer Fast. It gets treated as a Skimmer Fast. Please show where there is a rule that governs the height of the skimmer? The problem is, there is no rule that says that skimmers all exist within the rules at x height. You are told to measure from each skimmers hull, and to use the base it came with. That makes skimmers have a varying height. Yes, it has a new height base, which causes this skimmer to interact with the game differently than other skimmers. We have clear rules how to handle every one of those interactions though.

[quote=Frazzled]GW through in a flyer base because its cool and they already had the base (and maybe because the model is physically too big for the standard skimmer base, its a big mother). [/quote]
Please show the rule that GW put the Valkyrie on a taller base for the reasons you state. See, it doesn't exist. You are making it up based on indicators from fluff, marketing material, opinions, etc. None of which change a clearly working set of rules. The opinion on the RAI would only matter if something was clearly broken in the rules.

For instance, it mentions you can still disembark normally. You can, you disembark normally onto a terrain piece that would place your models no more than 2" away. This is the same concept as for every other vehicle. You can't disembark over the side of a cliff, for example.

If the stand was high enough that the model was greater than 2" away from the highest legal piece of terrain while still mentioning disembarking normally, then you have a broken rule and would need to house rule it, which of course would be based on RAI. As there is nothing actually broken about the current rules, there is no requirement to house rule any changes.


[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Frazzled][quote=Kaaihn][quote=Gwar!][quote=Frazzled]As noted, for those who have the FW version with no base provided, what then? [/quote]Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.[/quote]

Actually, the answer is that a proxy, or counts as, is treated in all respects like the model it is intended to be. This means treating your FW Valkyrie with no base as if it was at the same height as the official one.

You were fine to treat it as being on the ground until GW came out with the official one that has an official height it needs to be treated as. Now that the official one is out, you are just proxying and should follow the proxy rules.[/quote]


A valkyrie is a proxy for a valkyrie, but not any more, now its just a valkyrie?

Blink. [/quote]

As silly as it sounds, yep! Remember that Valkyrie wasn't even legal to be in the game prior to the new codex to begin with, it was allowed in under a house rule. FW models and rules are not legal in standard games, except to use the model as a proxy to something in the codex.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755670.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755670.page GMT LOS) and only relevent to how high in the air the model stands. Thus, could I simply mount my Valks on smaller/lower stands as long as that stand and the model sit atop the black base that it comes with?

FWIW I think troops should deploy normally from a Valk, but I also think that you should be able to smash them with 2d6 ap rolls from your half range melta weapons and such.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755674.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755674.page GMT LOS) and only relevent to how high in the air the model stands. Thus, could I simply mount my Valks on smaller/lower stands as long as that stand and the model sit atop the black base that it comes with?

FWIW I think troops should deploy normally from a Valk, but I also think that you should be able to smash them with 2d6 ap rolls from your half range melta weapons and such.[/quote]

The argument will now be that you can't change the base it came with. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755684.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755684.page GMT
Yes, you can. People change their models around to gain advantages all of the time (kneeling Wraithlords, Defilers with loincloths to block LOS, mounting Bloodcrushers on tiny bases, etc). The rules are that you must use the base supplied with the model, not the flying stand (and the rules do indeed differentiate between the two).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755697.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755697.page GMT
I'll treat it like a falcon in my games. Low enough to the ground to do everything a falcon can and low enough to be blasted out of the sky by meltas. If my opponent decides they want to call it really tall to avoid my guns, they'll have to accept the other consequences with it of not being able to disembark and not being able to contest ground-level objectives. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755728.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755728.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755731.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755731.page GMT
I'll treat it like a falcon in my games. Low enough to the ground to do everything a falcon can and low enough to be blasted out of the sky by meltas. If my opponent decides they want to call it really tall to avoid my guns, they'll have to accept the other consequences with it of not being able to disembark and not being able to contest ground-level objectives. [/quote]

Why aren't the wings hull? Page 56 of the rulebook defines what isn't hull. It says, "measure to or from their hull (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

Are Wings....
Gun barrels? No.
Dozer Blades? No.
Antennas? No.
Banners or other decorativ elements? No.

Well if it not stuff that isn't hull, then it must be hull.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755767.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755767.page GMT I might be wrong (I don't have skimmers so never use the rules) but they are not counted as floating over terrain any longer, so if they end their turn in/over a crater, they need to take the dangerous test. Does this not imply that the actual location of the vehicle's hull is defined by something other than the peice of plastic that is some number of inches off the table?

I am not saying I know the answer, or even that this matters, but it seems like a weird double standard.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755793.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755793.page GMT
I am not saying I know the answer, or even that this matters, but it seems like a weird double standard.[/quote]Welcome to 40k]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755811.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755811.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755813.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755813.page GMT
Why aren't the wings hull? Page 56 of the rulebook defines what isn't hull. It says, "measure to or from their hull (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

Are Wings....
Gun barrels? No.
Dozer Blades? No.
Antennas? No.
Banners or other decorativ elements? No.

Well if it not stuff that isn't hull, then it must be hull.[/quote]

Classic example of a deductive fallacy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755814.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755814.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755818.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755818.page GMT
I don't know, I just wish that GW would hire some actual rules geeks instead of just fluff bunnies.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755824.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755824.page GMT
You have deduced that just because wings are not included in the examples of what is not hull, that they are therefore hull. It is analogous to the following:

Premise 1: All ravens are black.
Premise 2: Birds A and B are black, but they are not ravens.
Premise 3: Bird C is black.

Illogical conclusion: Bird C is a raven.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755834.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755834.page GMT AFAIK) to determine hull. If there are I will gladly go by those.

What I mean to say is can anyone prove with rules that wings aren't hull? It isn't one of the things decribed as clearly not hull.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755843.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755843.page GMT AFAIK) to determine hull. If there are I will gladly go by those.

What I mean to say is can anyone prove with rules that wings aren't hull? It isn't one of the things decribed as clearly not hull.[/quote]

It is definitely a gray area. That particular line of reasoning, however, isn't sound.

Hull is defined as the main body or frame of a ship/aircraft/whatever. I personally wouldn't call the wings part of the main body, but it's a matter of interpretation.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755848.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755848.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755874.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755874.page GMT
I was referring to the dictionary definition of what a hull is, which is what should be deferred to in the absence of a clearly defined game term.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755917.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755917.page GMT AFAIK) to determine hull. If there are I will gladly go by those.

What I mean to say is can anyone prove with rules that wings aren't hull? It isn't one of the things decribed as clearly not hull.[/quote]

It is definitely a gray area. That particular line of reasoning, however, isn't sound.

Hull is defined as the main body or frame of a ship/aircraft/whatever. I personally wouldn't call the wings part of the main body, but it's a matter of interpretation.[/quote]You are making the assumption Hull means Hull. This Is GW, they could have meant hull to include wings and such. The problem is a model of the scale of the Valk has never been made before, so the 5th ed rules were not written with it in mind.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755919.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755919.page GMT
If wings are not hull, then you could conceivably stick the bulk of the model behind something solid (and very tall) to block LoS, but have the wings stick out from the sides of it and thus be allowed to shoot the wing mounted weapons (since LoS and distance are measured from the weapon of the vehicle) while at the same time, not being able to be shot at. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755990.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/755990.page GMT GW, they could have meant hull to include wings and such. The problem is a model of the scale of the Valk has never been made before, so the 5th ed rules were not written with it in mind.[/quote]

One must make that assumption otherwise the entire passage is meaningless (same applies to any sentence in the rulebook). Hull has no meaning as a game term, therefore one must defer to its definition in the English language, lest the passage have no meaning at all.

Or do you have a better idea?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756055.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756055.page GMT GW can't write.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756074.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756074.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756128.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756128.page GMT Do not use valkyries in non-apocalypse games. and in apoc games you can use them as fliers ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756136.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756136.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756149.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756149.page GMT Since Hull can encompass the skin of a vehicle rather than just the body, the wings/tail should be valid targets. Heaven forbid the heavy weapon of choice make ugly holes in the wings of the Valkyrie. Its not going to just walk it off. Landing gear and VTOL thrusters are included in the wings suggesting they have some significance.

Few would argue that one would have to draw LOS to the fuselage of a Thunderhawk, Phoenix Raider, Hellblade, or Barracuda. Making an exception for the Valkyrie isn't appropriate then.

As for disembarking, GW's loose rules strike again. I'd bring it to the attention of a tournament organizer beforehand. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756170.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756170.page GMT
How ever I'd agree with Oldgrue that the wings should be considered part of the Targetable Model. It's decerative equipment that's supposed to be ignored for LOS, such as antenne. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756184.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756184.page GMT
Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756206.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756206.page GMT
Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull[/quote]Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what [b]English [/b](The Language Spoken in [b]England [/b]and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756215.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756215.page GMT
[Quote]1 a: the outer covering of a fruit or seed b: the persistent calyx or involucre that subtends some fruits (as a strawberry)
2 a: the frame or body of a ship or boat exclusive of masts, yards, sails, and rigging b: the main body of a usually large or heavy craft or vehicle (as an airship or tank)[/Quote]

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756219.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756219.page GMT
First of all I would consider the wings a major part of the valkerie. If you dont think so I already said that you can just angle it down in such a way that it CAN capture ground objectives anyways. Wether with the main body or the wing, which I consider a main part. What you cannot do is glue LONG antaenas to the thing that hang low to the ground. Is there a rule I missed that says "SKimmers cannot capture ground based objectives?" If not then this argument has no merit as long as SOME MAIN PART of the valk is close enough to the obj. I would say the wings are a main part. Otherwise you can't shoot them and you can shoot thru them as they are then considered decorative.

Secondly going back to the "HULL" arguement if you want to really be anal going that route then a Valkrie cannot capture ANYTHING at all. Its a plane. Planes do not have "Hulls" they have fuselages.

ARGH]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756717.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756717.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756778.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/756778.page GMT
I think we can fairly safely conclude, however:
a) GW fails at writing rules forever.
b) There were some glaring oversights made in the writing of the Valkyrie rules such that...
c) The Valkyrie doesn't fit in to current 5th edition rules in a logical manner


Can anyone here seriously, with a straight face, tell me that they honestly believe GW designed a transport with the specific intent that it could not unload passengers in 90% of situations?


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757122.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757122.page GMT Can anyone here seriously, with a straight face, tell me that they honestly believe GW designed a transport with the specific intent that it could not unload passengers in 90% of situations?
[/quote]

They designed the grav chute insersion to enable disembarking.
A vehicle designed to drop troops and not to embark troops does not appear shocking to me; see the drop pod.

Anyway, I would not complain if an opponent uses valk on a shorter base in order to enable embarking/disembarking, as it will be more balanced (melta range, LOS // objectives, embarking).
I know this is not a perfect solution, since it should be used on its original base, but I feel like its the most viable solution.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757143.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757143.page GMT
no, they developed it as another form of disembarking if it has moved flat out. not as it's only form of disembarking.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757316.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757316.page GMT
no, they developed it as another form of disembarking if it has moved flat out. not as it's only form of disembarking.[/quote]

While I believe it is RAI that they are intended to allow "normal" disembarking, the RAW is pretty clear that you can't unless you're disembarking into an elevated position.

Grav Chute Insertion clearly tells you how to perform the operation.

Since there are no rules for how to disembark from a valkyrie "normally" you pretty much just have to make up rules if you want to claim that you can do it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757318.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757318.page GMT
*Run it on a normal skimmer base.

*Count it as running on a normal skimmer base for all height purposes.

If your opponent is disagreeable (as I'm not the Valk player I would be said opponent) point and laugh at anyone saying they can't deploy until they agree with one of the above.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757374.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757374.page GMT
*Run it on a normal skimmer base.

*Count it as running on a normal skimmer base for all height purposes.

If your opponent is disagreeable (as I'm not the Valk player I would be said opponent) point and laugh at anyone saying they can't deploy until they agree with one of the above.

[/quote]

If you do that you're making up a rule that lets you use a different base than the one the model comes with.

Seriously, I'm all for letting my opponent disembark. I just realize that it doesn't actually follow any rules that are written in the book, and I also don't think that guard opponents should be able to break as many rules as they want just because they have a nice new model: when you need to break the rules to make something work, clarify with your opponent first, and if your opponent is not ok with it go with the pre-established rules. That's good sportsmanship.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757381.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757381.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757414.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757414.page GMT
Page 3 of the rulebook?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757418.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757418.page GMT
2. OT but is your avatar a chicken with a guitar? cool. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757420.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757420.page GMT
Of course, if your opponent's ok with it, you can make up whatever rules you want to use regarding anything. This has been a long-standing gaming convention. At the same time, though, if your opponent wants to play by the "rules as written" then it's your responsibility to either comply, or not play the game.

My avatar is Beaker (from the muppets) with a guitar, and it says "boys don't cry." It's hilarious ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757424.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757424.page GMT *** I'd argue thats being met. Its coming with the same base, just sawed down a bit. The second part also applies - using a nonstandard base. So we're good here.
If you disagree we'll just have to agree to disagree (say that five times in a row).

[quote]My avatar is Beaker (from the muppets) with a guitar, and it says "boys don't cry." It's hilarious [/quote]
It is indeed.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757427.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757427.page GMT
Everyone I know with them, or playing against them plays in the spirit of the game. It lands/hovers low for troops to embark etc, move it where you want in the movement phase. It's not actually a skimmer base as such as far as we're concerened. The rule book says somewhere that things will crop up in games not covered, go with the spirit and most importantly have fun! If I play against someone who's that argumentative about it carrying troops I'll go with what they say to finsih the game and not play them again. I play for fun - anything else is a waste of my time. If I'm not going to enjoy a game I might as well go stick pins in my eyes just because I can!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757433.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757433.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757437.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757437.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757439.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757439.page GMT It's an enjoyable hobby, competative gaming fair enough stick to the RAW but other than that do what's fun!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757441.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757441.page GMT RAW then height is not part of the base discussion.

Again reasonable people could disagree, but THEY'RE WRONG WRONG REALLY REALLY WRONG! ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757448.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757448.page GMT
I'd be inclined to agree with you, except for the fact that if your opponent doesn't want to let you use an alternate base... well what happens then? Most people (with some infamous exceptions) don't magnetize their bases.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757452.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757452.page GMT http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull[/quote]Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what [b]English [/b](The Language Spoken in [b]England [/b]and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...[/quote]

Funny, my copy of the rulebook tells us to measure in inches. Must a misprint, seeing as England uses the metric system.

[quote]willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"[/quote]

5th edition rulebook, page 3:

[i]"Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic
base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before
they can be used in the game."[/i]

The Valkyrie does indeed come with a plastic base and must therefore be glued to it. While I doubt anyone will ever require you to actually glue the model to the base, you've still got to use it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757463.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757463.page GMT http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull[/quote]Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what [b]English [/b](The Language Spoken in [b]England [/b]and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...[/quote]

Funny, my copy of the rulebook tells us to measure in inches. Must a misprint, seeing as England uses the metric system.[/quote]

England uses a schizophrenic mix of Metric and Imperial.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757467.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757467.page GMT RaW Rool #1: You may break RaW at any time so long as both parties agree to it[quote=Danny Internets][quote=Gwar!][quote=Danny Internets]Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull[/quote]Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what [b]English [/b](The Language Spoken in [b]England [/b]and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...[/quote]Funny, my copy of the rulebook tells us to measure in inches. Must a misprint, seeing as England uses the metric system.[/quote]Yes, that's why our Speed Limits are in Mile per Hour, we Still buy things in Pounds and Ounces and we Order a Pint at the Pub. No surprise at your flag tbh. (protip: Check my Flag, I think I know it just a Little better than you). Edit: as willydstyle got there before me, yes we use both.[quote=Danny Internets][quote]willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"[/quote]

5th edition rulebook, page 3:

[i]"Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic
base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before
they can be used in the game."[/i]

The Valkyrie does indeed come with a plastic base and must therefore be glued to it. While I doubt anyone will ever require you to actually glue the model to the base, you've still got to use it.[/quote]1) If you're gonna copypaste from Illegal Downloads at least remove the linebreaks.
2) You forgot to add the second part (typed in, not copypasted):
Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

If your opponent does mind this, don't play them
If you're in a Tournament, get it cleared by the TO pre tournament, then your opponet HAS to accept it or auto forfeit.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757495.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757495.page GMT
I'm bringing it up again because it garnered a very small amount of responses from the people who are regularly posting in this thread before, and it now seems very relevent to the direction the discussion has gone in.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757517.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757517.page GMT tbh. (protip: Check my Flag, I think I know it just a Little better than you). Edit: as willydstyle got there before me, yes we use both.[/quote]

Regardless, the British rulebook uses the metric system while the language of the American rulebook is specifically changed, so using an American English dictionary to discern the meaning of said rules isn't exactly a far stretch. I know you're just being argumentative because that's what you do, but let's get real.

[quote=Gwar!]1) If you're gonna copypaste from Illegal Downloads at least remove the linebreaks.[/quote]

I own a hard copy of the rulebook. Get over it.

[quote]2) You forgot to add the second part (typed in, not copypasted):
Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

If your opponent does mind this, don't play them
If you're in a Tournament, get it cleared by the TO pre tournament, then your opponet HAS to accept it or auto forfeit.[/quote]

I didn't include the second part because it is irrelevant. Asking your opponent (or a TO) if it's OK to break a rule is the same as agreeing to play a house rule. But we're not talking about house rules here, we're talking about actual rules. The rules say you must use the base it is supplied with (unless you agree on a house rule with your opponent--ie, "it's ok to mount a Valkyrie on a Land Speeder flight stand").

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757589.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757589.page GMT TO) if it's OK to break a rule is the same as agreeing to play a house rule. But we're not talking about house rules here, we're talking about actual rules. The rules say you must use the base it is supplied with (unless you agree on a house rule with your opponent--ie, "it's ok to mount a Valkyrie on a Land Speeder flight stand").[/quote]Wait, what? how is that breaking the rule. The ACTUAL rule is to ask your opponent. How does one break the rule by following the rule? They don't that's how. You Can mount your models on whatever freaking bases you want. You just have to ask your opponent if he minds. If he does, don't play them. That is well within the rules. If he doesn't mind, play them with the new base. That is ALSO within the rules.

Please, explain how I am "Agreeing to a house rule" when the rule is in the freaking Rulebook?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757610.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757610.page GMT
Rule A says you do one thing. Rule B says you can break Rule A if your opponent says it's OK. Regardless, you are still breaking rule A.

It's exactly the same as GW's "The Most Important Rule":

"The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
– the choice is entirely yours."

The entire rulebook is prefaced with a section that says you can break ANY rule as long as both players agree. Agreeing to break a rule (and thereby use a different rule) is called a house rule, yes?

Got it now?

The second part of the base rule is just a reiteration of The Most Important Rule. You and your opponent can also agree bolters are S10 AP1 if you want, as per the rules. Whoop-dee-doo.

Let's get back to the actual rules, instead of discussing the legality of ignoring them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757626.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757626.page GMT
And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757734.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/757734.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758016.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758016.page GMT
But hey, it's been ended, no point in continuing the discussion right?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758050.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758050.page GMT
And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?[/quote]

The "must be set down on the table" does not mean that you remove it from its base. The rules are clear that you only remove a skimmer from its base when it is wrecked or immobilized. What being "set down on the table" means is that you can't just keep it hovering in the air to do "pop up" attacks.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758103.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758103.page GMT

But seriously, Willydstyle has it correct. Now add me to your sig again ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758127.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758127.page GMT

But seriously, Willydstyle has it correct. Now add me to your sig again [/quote]

I only need it once, then I have your whole army of "Gwar! is right" backing me ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758140.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758140.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758143.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758143.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758146.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758146.page GMT
And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?[/quote]

The book tells you that skimmers can swoop and hover a few meters off the ground, and that when they move they can move over other models. You must set the model on its stand back down on the table though at the end of your move, you can't stay at altitude.

In practice think of it as settling to minimum hover at the end of its move, which is just above ground level. When it moves, it can gain altitude and swoop over other models and terrain. If you settle down to ground level in difficult terrain, you are low enough for the terrain to possibly immobilize you.

Bear in mind the terrain check is an abstract test, not based on the physical properties of the terrain you stopped on. You would have to take the test from landing on a shallow crater difficult terrain the same as if you landed on a woods difficult terrain. This is why this rule applies equally to the Valkyrie on its higher base than other skimmers; the height of the base doesn't matter for this rule.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758652.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758652.page GMT

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758813.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758813.page GMT GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out.

P.s: Why do you imply that it is just their to look cool? Do you have some sort of preconceived answer to your question? Hardly neutral Language there....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758816.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758816.page GMT I was under the impression that my fire warriors aren't allowed to shoot under/through their devilfish. By the same token (seeing as a Valk is just a skimmer it is just on a flying base) does it block LOS?
(apologies if something covering that is actually in the valkyrie rules, i dont have the IG codex)

[quote]This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out. [/quote] Seeing as you seem to be aware of the great failings of GW's rule system, is there a particular reason for the adamant defense of something that clearly doesn't make sense? Or do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

(I'm not saying that the Valk can't be played perfectly to fit the rules, i'm just saying that playing it to fit the rules has some great logical flaws)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758822.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758822.page GMT I was under the impression that my fire warriors aren't allowed to shoot under/through their devilfish. By the same token (seeing as a Valk is just a skimmer it is just on a flying base) does it block LOS?
(apologies if something covering that is actually in the valkyrie rules, i dont have the IG codex)[/quote]
You have the wrong impression. Firewarriors can fire under the fish so long as they can actually trace LOS under it. The same with the valk. And yeah, it blocks line of sight, but only the actual model.[quote=Trasvi][quote]This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out. [/quote] Seeing as you seem to be aware of the great failings of GW's rule system, is there a particular reason for the adamant defense of something that clearly doesn't make sense? Or do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

(I'm not saying that the Valk can't be played perfectly to fit the rules, i'm just saying that playing it to fit the rules has some great logical flaws)[/quote]A lot of things in the rules don't "make sense". It doesn't matter if the do or don't. Play by the rules or don't play at all.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758824.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/758824.page GMT
Actually, every other transport measures 2" from the access point. It's just that with every other transport the vertical distance is irrelevant because the access point is along the ground.

As pointed out earlier, the developers are quite aware of the existence of the third dimension in the rules of Warhammer 40k (refer to the section on Ruins). Instead of restricting the measurement to horizontal distance, they indicate that you simply measure from point A to point B. Using both the explicit meaning of the language and the context of the rules, it is impossible to reasonably conclude that the vertical distance is to be ignored.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/759742.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/759742.page GMT GW ever tried to use it following the rules directly. [i]Maybe they didn't even use the stand in playtest.[/i]]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/759777.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/759777.page GMT
Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/760002.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/760002.page GMT
Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?[/quote]

You should simply expect to play by the rules. If you have personal objections to playing by the rules then perhaps tournaments aren't for you. Consult your TO if you have specific questions. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/760027.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/760027.page GMT
Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?[/quote]

You should probably at the very least expect some sort of discussion as to how to make them work within the 5th edition rules, unless the tournament has an entry in their FAQ covering it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/760727.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/760727.page GMT
Explaining how the rules work is not "rule lawyering." Unfortunately how the rules interact with the Valkyrie is very clear, and also seems to be very contrary to how the designer intended it to be.

This discussion is intended to be about how to play the model, while breaking the least number of rules and still having it be a fun and usable vehicle.

Some people think that you can follow [i]all[/i] of the rules and the valkyrie does just fine. Other people disagree to one degree or another.

Coming into a discussion and throwing around insults does not do anything to further the discussion.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761324.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761324.page GMT RAW way to play, but it seemed work while ignoring the least rules, and fluff wise could be excused as the troops using descent ropes. Clearly I'd recommend bringing this up with your opponent, (or the TO) before the games begin, so there's less argument overall.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761417.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761417.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761467.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761467.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761514.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/761514.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762232.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762232.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762416.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762416.page GMT [/quote]

Very true. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762439.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762439.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762459.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762459.page GMT [/quote]

Shhhhh... you don't want to disturb them...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762469.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762469.page GMT LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762756.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/762756.page GMT LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.[/quote]
Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763007.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763007.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763014.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763014.page GMT LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.[/quote]

At tournaments, I'll play as the Tourney Organiser interprets.
Hopefully they will publish a FAQ before the event, so there are no surprises half-way through a game.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763034.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763034.page GMT 2. I'd bet good money your average IG player is not going to have a clue what the argument is, because they have not been proven to 15 page plus discussions on it. You pop this to such a player then A. the TO wil likely rule its a skimmer and play in similar manner to every other skim height etc. B. You will now be marked as TFG, trying to take advantage of a loop hole to hammer your opponent.

Again, I don't have any Valks. I don't currently play guard. While I disagree with the reasoning on this issue I can see the argument and also and easy way to address prior to the game.

But having said all that, I can see how this would go down with extreme clarity. You might as well brand stick a flashing TFG guy on your forehead unless you are amenable to agreement before the game starts.


Edit, as a TO I'd say play it an agreed upon height. the IG player wanted to play it at 2in I'd agree to that. If you objected you would be shunned as TFG. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763047.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763047.page GMT Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?[/quote]

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763086.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763086.page GMT TO looked at me like I was crazy as did all of my opponents that I felt this even needed to be discussed.

Thier response.

Of course you can deploy, just use the base if there is any question. And they all had said that anyone who would try to argue for playing it that you could not would have been looked at as TFG in the extreme.

This is really one of those things were its painfully clear how it should be played by the designers intent. I do agree that the rules can be interpreted that you can not, but that is an interpretation that can be argued against reasonably. With that and the very clear intent that they shoudl be able to be used at regular transports ( and no that does not mean only being able to deploy on raised terrain) I do not think this will come up in anything but very isolated tourneys run by TOs who has some kind of problem with IG or the Valk model.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763088.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763088.page GMT Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?[/quote]

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.[/quote]

See, here's where the screaming starts. I am sure if you pulled this out of your butt at a tournament the TO would be extremely aware quickly. I think the first "You're full of !" would probably alert the rest of tournament players to your maneuver.

And they can indeed give you a "0." Its not cheating. Its sportsmanship and they would be viewing you as a poor sport.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763091.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763091.page GMT Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?[/quote]

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.[/quote]

This makes me laugh. This isn't exactly a core rule that's being exploited for unfair play by an IG player. Odds are, he simply never though about it, and would quite fairly be totally surprised if half way through a game was told he can't deploy from his transport. Like it or not, it is unsportsmanlike to sandbag that sort of rules argument. Sportsmanship isn't the following of rules (that much is assumed), but rather gentelmanly and honourable play that shows respect for the opponent. Given that it seems that there is a small but vocal minority here that seems to be 100% certain that the Valks are played one way, while most people are very much unsure, I would expect this to be a matter of confusion.

Now, if a player knocks another down after there is a pre-game discussion in which the TO rules on the issue against the IG player, that's a big more petty, as at least the IG player can utilize his army in another way. IN a few months, when tournies figure out house rules for the thing, there will be less of a surprise factor.

If nothing else, part of sportsmanship is the elusive "would you want to play against this person again." If a player tried to invalidate my valks in a tourny, then no, I would not want to play them again, because the RAI is clear, and if and when a FAQ comes out it will allow deployment/disembarking. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763096.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763096.page GMT EDIT: Now if Gwar started prior to the game and said "little Jimmy, please quit making pew pew noises and concentrate for a minute. There's an LOS height issue with Valks (explains potential issue). how do you want to handle it?"

If I were little Jimmy not only would we come to a quick agreement but I'd score you HIGHER on sportsmanship as a result for having the foresight to deal with issues and not try to spring them on me. Then I would go back to making pew pew noises.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763097.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763097.page GMT
This makes me laugh. This isn't exactly a core rule that's being exploited for unfair play by an IG player. Odds are, he simply never though about it, and would quite fairly be totally surprised if half way through a game was told he can't deploy from his transport. Like it or not, it is unsportsmanlike to sandbag that sort of rules argument. Sportsmanship isn't the following of rules (that much is assumed), but rather gentelmanly and honourable play that shows respect for the opponent. Given that it seems that there is a small but vocal minority here that seems to be 100% certain that the Valks are played one way, while most people are very much unsure, I would expect this to be a matter of confusion.

Now, if a player knocks another down after there is a pre-game discussion in which the TO rules on the issue against the IG player, that's a big more petty, as at least the IG player can utilize his army in another way. IN a few months, when tournies figure out house rules for the thing, there will be less of a surprise factor.

If nothing else, part of sportsmanship is the elusive "would you want to play against this person again." If a player tried to invalidate my valks in a tourny, then no, I would not want to play them again, because the RAI is clear, and if and when a FAQ comes out it will allow deployment/disembarking. [/quote]

Measuring from base of dismbarking model to access point is indeed a core rule, as is measuring to and from the hull of a vehicle.

He may have never thought about it. He probably hasn't thought about a lot of things, but that's hardly the failing of the person insisting on enforcement of those rules.

Sure, it sucks, but knowing the rules is part of the game. I personally wouldn't surprise someone with the information (I would let them know about the proper way to play it when they inform me that a unit is inside), but I don't fault people for telling me about rules which I am not familiar with during a game.

[quote]And they can indeed give you a "0." Its not cheating. Its sportsmanship and they would be viewing you as a poor sport. [/quote]

Sure, and I can give you a "0" when you insist your bolters are S4. Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you aren't abusing the system.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763112.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763112.page GMT
2. That will be cold counsel when the rest of your opponents now think of you as TFG. Again, discuss beforehand = smooth move. Springing this on an opponent mid game screams TFG. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763122.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763122.page GMT
2. That will be cold counsel when the rest of your opponents now think of you as TFG. Again, discuss beforehand = smooth move. Springing this on an opponent mid game screams TFG. [/quote]

Of what am I in the minority? I share the position originally posited by others in this thread, and which has withstood dozens of half-baked arguments. I don't even see any remaining arguments to the contrary. Do you have one that's founded in the rules and not personal opinion?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763158.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763158.page GMT
The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763159.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763159.page GMT
The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.[/quote]

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with [u]your interpretation[/u] to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763167.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763167.page GMT
The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.[/quote]

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with [u]your interpretation[/u] to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation. [/quote]

Speaking of being quick to jump to conclusions, if you re-read my post you'll note that the only people I called cheaters are those who abuse the sportsmanship system.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763172.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763172.page GMT TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763178.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763178.page GMT TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.[/quote]

Again, said more succinctly, and politely than I could do.
The Danny Internets interpretation may even be more the more correct RAW interpretation. But I "my way or the highway" approach to an interesting interpretation that would single out IG players, especially when the direct codex infers the opposite, is a no bueno approach to tournament uber domination. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763199.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763199.page GMT TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.[/quote]

Interesting that you equate strict rules adherence with being a jerk. Perhaps locally it's just much more tolerated because we understand that this is a game of rules and that playing by those rules is the only way to guarantee fairness through consistent application.

Either way, no offense taken. I've won enough "Best Sportsman" and "Favorite Opponent" awards at local tournaments to discount contrary personal opinions from people I don't even know. If that's the social position being myself puts me in, then, so be it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763208.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763208.page GMT TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.[/quote]

Interesting that you equate strict rules adherence with being a jerk. Perhaps locally it's just much more tolerated because we understand that this is a game of rules and that playing by those rules is the only way to guarantee fairness through consistent application.

Either way, no offense taken. I've won enough "Best Sportsman" and "Favorite Opponent" awards at local tournaments to discount contrary personal opinions from people I don't even know. If that's the social position being myself puts me in, then, so be it.[/quote]

I'm not saying you're a jerk, I"m saying you can't be shocked that somebody would find your behavior to be jerk like, and therefor unsportsmanlike. Yes, when playing at your local odds are your view point holds a lot more sway. If you played at a another store, and they game differently, they might find your position to be unsporting.

Also, not to denigrate your achievements, but if your local RTTs are like mine, "Best Sports" means you had the highest battle points of the people that scored max sports, often by playing some combination of friends and people that just max everybody out. It's a nice attaboy, but at a lot of shops it's a highly unofficial third place trophy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763259.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763259.page GMT
The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.[/quote]

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with [u]your interpretation[/u] to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation. [/quote]

Actually, it [i]is[/i] a mathematical argument because it basically hinges on numerical measurements.

If: > 2" from access point, then: cannot disembark

If: >3" from hull, then: cannot capture/contest

Then the only argument becomes that Warhammer is a 2d game, not 3d, but several examples in the book (on page 83) and the fact that it's played with 3D LoS, 3D terrain, and 3D models does not support that hypothesis. Yes, the diagram for disembarking does appear in 2D... but really, how else could they show it, and the rule still simply says "within 2" of an access point." Not, "2 inches of an access point as perceived in a 2d plane from the top of the vehicle."

Q.E.D.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763806.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763806.page GMT TFG and thus do not have the support of the "room"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763825.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763825.page GMT
Of course, many people do not understand math, or choose not to (I don't mean you Frazzled) so you can explain things to them and they just don't get it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763841.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763841.page GMT 40k as 2d with 3d add ons to to:
1) make the claim that RAW is 100% clear difficult, and
2) make pushing that claim forward in game a move of shaky sportsmanship.

I think that RAW is pretty clear, and it's becoming more and more apparent that 40k is 3d, but there are huge areas where it's 2d, and simply ignoring that in favor of reaching a conclusion is a bit premature, particularly given both the RAI and the custom of play.

Edit on Math: And that's the central core: you are using the axiom that all measurments are in 3d. That's fine, but it's still an axiom, not a rule.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763846.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763846.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763849.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763849.page GMT 40k as 2d with 3d add ons to to:
1) make the claim that RAW is 100% clear difficult, and
2) make pushing that claim forward in game a move of shaky sportsmanship.

I think that RAW is pretty clear, and it's becoming more and more apparent that 40k is 3d, but there are huge areas where it's 2d, and simply ignoring that in favor of reaching a conclusion is a bit premature, particularly given both the RAI and the custom of play.

Edit on Math: And that's the central core: you are using the axiom that all measurments are in 3d. That's fine, but it's still an axiom, not a rule.[/quote]

I wouldn't say that there are "huge areas" where the game is played as 2D. The only time that I can think of that you are specifically told to only take two dimensions into account is when resolving the number of hits caused by blast and template weapons. Given the amount of the game that must be played in three dimensions, I think that you would need an exception in the rules to measure something in two.

Most measurements, in order to satisfy the rules for measuring, must be made in three dimensions. Most of the time, measuring from the base of one model to the base of another model will be made on a plane, but if there are any differences in the elevation between two models (assume one is on a hill) if you are not measuring at a diagonal angle, you are not measuring from the base of one model to the base of the other model, but you are measuring from "the base of one model to the area above the base of the other model" which is not what the rules tell us to do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763976.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/763976.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764045.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764045.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764105.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764105.page GMT
It's like the original Doom: yeah, you moved up and down, but not freely.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764142.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764142.page GMT
I'm not following... You can move freely on the Z axis, so long as there's something to stand on. That's a big part of where the 3D terrain comes in.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not seeing how a Space Marine's inability to stand on empty air should affect measuring distances between two objects.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764271.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764271.page GMT
I'm not following... You can move freely on the Z axis, so long as there's something to stand on. That's a big part of where the 3D terrain comes in.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not seeing how a Space Marine's inability to stand on empty air should affect measuring distances between two objects.[/quote]

Because, it means that 40k is only 3d when it absolutely has to be. Ruins, aiming at things at increased heights, LOS, that sort of thing. These are things that force special rules to deal with a 3d world.

Look, I'm not arguing a point here. I've read the rules cover to cover, and there is simply no way I buy the notion that 40k is 100% 3d. I'm clearly outnumbered, and I'll play however people play, but the RAW you propose requires models having the ability to move freely in 3d, which they don't have.

So, you can argue all you want, but when you apply a logical system and get a preposterous result, sometimes you check your axioms. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764282.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764282.page GMT 40k isn't fully adapted to 3d measurements.

Sure, there are 3d elements (terrain can have elevated levels of height, some models are taller than others) but there is no real adaption for some other 3 dimensional things.

For example.... Jet packs. Can move 6 inches of jet flight. However, if I use their jetpacks to jump 6 inches over another squad, the distance travelled along my jump arc is obviously going to be more than 6 inches. Yet people are ok with me jumping over a squad that is 1 inch tall (moving 6 inches horizontally) yet if I jump over a 10 inch wall (moving 6 inches horizontally) people complain.
Unless you all bend your tape measures into a parabola every time you move your jump infantry...?

I think the real issue is that the rules don't have any clear explanation or ruling of models which are significantly above ground level. The ruins section obviously doesn't work in a totally 3d way (Ie, you put the blast on a 2d plane) but is the only real indication we have. Nothing else in the core rules has any clear resolution for a model who's hull is 5 inches off the ground, and it is very strange to me that people are trying to apply obviously faulty rules to the situation.

And as for amicable agreement before a game starts... what if BOTH people try to make a quick resolution before the game, from opposite viewpoints?


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764336.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764336.page GMT LOS, that sort of thing.[/quote]

So, like, pretty much all the time, then...?

The very fact that the game uses 3D models and terrain, and uses the profiles of those 3D models and terrain for determining movement and LOS, should be more than enough to show that the game is inherently 3D.

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to argue the point either. I'm trying to understand what your point [i]is[/i], because it simply doesn't make any sense so far.


[quote]but the RAW you propose requires models having the ability to move freely in 3d, which they don't have. [/quote]

Sorry, but it does nothing of the sort.

I can't move vertically upwards without having something to climb. Does that make me inherently 2-dimensional?

Whether or not a model can move in empty air has no effect whatsoever on whether or not their height has any impact on the game. It would do if we were talking about, say, a space battle game... but we're talking about a land-based wargame. Infantry can't move freely in the Z axis without support because of gravity, not because the Z axis doesn't exist.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764340.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764340.page GMT
So, saying that models can't disembark a valkyrie because they can't reach the table top in the 2" of allocated disembarkation does not compute, because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.

Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down.

The problem, for me, with a z-axis that allows freer movment is that where models can rest becomes a bit more interesting. A lot of stores have thick forests that can support a model. Can jump troopers actually land on top of a canopy of trees? If not, why not? As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?

For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation. The flight stand is to make them easier to see.

We know that immobilized skimmers can get off their bases, and thus can "land."

So, my point is, the game makes just as much sense assuming that there is no Z-axis, and all references to it are exceptions to a general rule. It matches more closely the way most people play things that can move through the air, it makes more sense for rules like skimmers disembarking and the like, and it eliminates all kinds of nasty grey areas regarding skimmer bases.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764366.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764366.page GMT RAW is very... off.

A Valkyrie next to a multi story building.
Assuming the building is such that models can disembark from the Valk to the top floor of the building.
There is a squad on the top floor of the building, and also one on the bottom floor.
Someone fires a blast weapon at the top floor unit. It scatters onto the Valkyrie. However, technically the Valk is immune to this, as it exists on the ground.
And conversely a shot fired at the valkyrie which scatters will hit the bottom floor unit.
Doesn't that seem a little strange to you?

Combine this with the disembarking onto the top floor. Even though the doors of your Rhino may be 2 inches tall, you're not allowed (or at least it would be the most beardy thing in the world to try) to disembark from a Rhino into the 2nd level of some ruins. The Valk is just another transport vehicle, higher up. Why does it get different treatment?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764370.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764370.page GMT
Why not?

Do your models not move up and down hills? If you have a model on the top of a short sheer face (short enough to be not impassable, as models could conceivably clamber down it) should the model not be able to move down that face?


[quote]Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down. [/quote]

Pardon?

Sorry, you might need to explain that bit a little more thoroughly, because you've lost me completely.

The model on the hill is higher up because it's higher up, surely?


[quote]The problem, for me, with a z-axis that allows freer movment is that where models can rest becomes a bit more interesting. A lot of stores have thick forests that can support a model. Can jump troopers actually land on top of a canopy of trees? If not, why not? [/quote]

I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as both players had agreed beforehand that the trees were strong enough to support troops, and the models can physically stand there.

Around here, we've always played that models can be placed wherever they can physically be placed, unless something is specifically classed as impassable.



[quote]As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?[/quote]

They certainly should. Skimmers can move over terrain. Nothing in the rules suggests that they can ignore it for measurement purposes. It's no different to infantry movement... infantry measure the actual distance moved over a hill, skimmers measure the actual distance moved over a forest. All that changes is that the skimmer can move over things that infantry can't.


[quote]For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation.[/quote]

Not everybody plays that way, sorry.

I've always dealt with skimmers just the same as any other model... by assuming that the physical position of the model is the model's actual location.



[quote]and it eliminates all kinds of nasty grey areas regarding skimmer bases.[/quote]

Which grey areas are those?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764394.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764394.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764397.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764397.page GMT Pardon?
Sorry, you might need to explain that bit a little more thoroughly, because you've lost me completely.
The model on the hill is higher up because it's higher up, surely?
[/quote]

For nearly all aspects of the game, a model's z coordinates are a function of their x and y coordinates. In other words, X and Y are freely variable in most circumstances, but for any given X+Y there is generally only one Z, except for the case of ruins which we have very special rules to deal with. In ruins, Z is a nominated value that does not vary with X+Y as can be seen with the rules of placing blast markers. And rules for ruins are about the only real references that we have for models who's base/hull can be significantly above ground level.


[quote][quote]because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.[/quote]
Why not?
Do your models not move up and down hills? If you have a model on the top of a short sheer face (short enough to be not impassable, as models could conceivably clamber down it) should the model not be able to move down that face?
[/quote]

In which case we use a difficult terrain test for moving upwards. A special rule.


[quote][quote]As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?[/quote]

They certainly should. Skimmers can move over terrain. Nothing in the rules suggests that they can ignore it for measurement purposes. It's no different to infantry movement... infantry measure the actual distance moved over a hill, skimmers measure the actual distance moved over a forest. All that changes is that the skimmer can move over things that infantry can't.
[/quote]

It seems that in 40k most of the time we work on a 6 inch displacement range, rather than 6 inch distance. It is a very different situation from moving straight up a hill - or rather, it is exactly the same: you nominate a finish point 6 inches away from your start point and move there. Skimmers do the same.
I don't think you'll find anyone who will ever say that skimmers/jump infantry need to move in arcs, so this is just being deliberately obtuse.


[quote]
[quote]For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation.[/quote]
Not everybody plays that way, sorry.
I've always dealt with skimmers just the same as any other model... by assuming that the physical position of the model is the model's actual location.
[/quote]
My Tau skimmers are 1 inch in the air. I think. Does that mean that instead of having a 2 inch radius around my access points, I actually have 1.73 inches to deploy my troops in?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764572.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764572.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764594.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764594.page GMT
No, it means you have 2" from the hatch, measured in three dimensions. That may mean that you have to be 1.73 inches from the hatch horizontally, but that's pretty much the breaks.

You see blast weapons as an example of how 40k is 2D. I see blast weapons as a specific exemption to a generally 3D ruleset.

@Emperors Faithful: Valkyries landing has been covered several times in this thread. A skimmer may only be removed from its base if it is immobilized or wrecked.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764601.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764601.page GMT How about disembarking onto a building (if valkryie is level with it?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764627.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764627.page GMT RAW that would be the only way to disembark "normally".

I think most players will allow (and expect) units to disembark around the base.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764628.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764628.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764633.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764633.page GMT
Skimmers that are supplied with parts to build them in a landed position (Valk, Hammerheads etc) will be able to 'land' at any point in their movement. Simply take the model off the flying base and set it down on it's landing feet. Models may also take off in the same mannor. This covers howvering just above ground etc. This also allows models with 'daft' bases like the valk to land behind a building for cover, as would be logical with those landing legs and vertical thrust jets.

Note this does not apply to all skimmers, just those that have a visual design that INCLUDES landing gear. Eldar, dark eldar, jet biokes, landspeeders etc. may not use this rule.

We know it doesn't make complete sense but solves the valk issue of disembarking in the most logical way we came up with, taking into consideration the spirit of the designer, while also being fair to other armies that also have the same logical apearance. We've not had any problems so far playing this way....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764828.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764828.page GMT
Skimmers that are supplied with parts to build them in a landed position (Valk, Hammerheads etc) will be able to 'land' at any point in their movement. Simply take the model off the flying base and set it down on it's landing feet. Models may also take off in the same mannor. This covers howvering just above ground etc. This also allows models with 'daft' bases like the valk to land behind a building for cover, as would be logical with those landing legs and vertical thrust jets.

Note this does not apply to all skimmers, just those that have a visual design that INCLUDES landing gear. Eldar, dark eldar, jet biokes, landspeeders etc. may not use this rule.

We know it doesn't make complete sense but solves the valk issue of disembarking in the most logical way we came up with, taking into consideration the spirit of the designer, while also being fair to other armies that also have the same logical apearance. We've not had any problems so far playing this way....[/quote]

While I think it's great you guys made some house rules, I can see problems if you ever play people from outside the same group.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764853.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764853.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764857.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/764857.page GMT What I am most interested in seeing, is if GW actually FAQS the valk for these purposes or if they just keep it the same assuming players know what to do. [/quote]
I wouldn't hold your breath. How long has the Drop Pod Model been out?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765424.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765424.page GMT FAQ'd? PM me the answers to that so we don't derail the thread. Thanks ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765451.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765451.page GMT FAQ'd? PM me the answers to that so we don't derail the thread. Thanks [/quote]The doors.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765507.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765507.page GMT www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/243507.page#765608

Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0) Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765623.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765623.page GMT
Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0) Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?
[/quote]

Well since your math is bad I guess your point does not stand.

You must think of the distance to the 2nd line of models as a triangle, and to figure out that distance you use pythagoras theorem

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

A = distance to base of first model (in your example is 1.5)

B = Distance to second base, which if placed directly agacent would be .5 inches (no reason to measure from the far side as i'd put the middle of the base directly under the 1.5 inch zone, i made an error in just accepting your prior 1inch here)

C= distance to new model's base

C=1.58113883

so there are no problems there. Since you can use this triange in any direction from the model with the same result, being able to deploy one model @ 1.5 inches means that you are necessarily able to deploy at least 9 models within 2"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765667.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765667.page GMT
Houston I think we have a problem with, all skimmers buahaha if we apply this rule. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765748.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765748.page GMT
How true this example is to actual models and their access points I'm not sure of. But, mathematically this proves the 1.5 inch standard flying base COULD allow the 2" disembark, where a 5" base could not.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765767.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765767.page GMT IIRC. But I'll grant you are getting close to a full complement of a normal squad and may reflect a full squad in real world application. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765781.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765781.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765817.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765817.page GMT
Even though there models are "technically" however high they are, whether its ground level, 3 inches 5 etc. It makes no sense to me that a skimmer wouldnt be able to lower itself to drop off or pick up squad members. Obviously a tank cant get to a high objective because it cant fly, but also as obvious is that a skimmer COULD get an objective close to the ground in the thought that any flying vehicle must have the ability to go up and down.

sorry if thats been said, made it through 4 or 5 pages of posts]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765818.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765818.page GMT
Even though there models are "technically" however high they are, whether its ground level, 3 inches 5 etc. It makes no sense to me that a skimmer wouldnt be able to lower itself to drop off or pick up squad members. Obviously a tank cant get to a high objective because it cant fly, but also as obvious is that a skimmer COULD get an objective close to the ground in the thought that any flying vehicle must have the ability to go up and down.

sorry if thats been said, made it through 4 or 5 pages of posts[/quote]

that is how most people play, how most tournaments are going to play it, and is almost assuredly what GW will say in the FAQ, if any.

It is not what RAW says, assuming a 3d system.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765827.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765827.page GMT [/quote]

Which would be accurate at least in so far as several of my skimmers are at differing angles... (everybody out!@)
I think I've been convinced you can likely get a full squad out at 1.5in height. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765839.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765839.page GMT
edit: doh! @ sonofterra]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765841.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765841.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765949.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765949.page GMT
As I believe the Valk can be mounted both tilting forwards and backwards, I would really appreciate both measurements.

Thanks in advance.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765951.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/765951.page GMT
But the fact that there [i]is[/i] a Z, and that Z can be different depending on where the model is placed, proves that the game is inherently 3D.

Specifically, we don't need a rule covering how the Z axis works, because it works automatically. A model's height is determined by where it is standing rather than by specific rules governing height.



[quote]I don't think you'll find anyone who will ever say that skimmers/jump infantry need to move in arcs, so this is just being deliberately obtuse.[/quote]

You need to be careful dictating how 'everybody' plays...

The same was said about people measuring horizontally for disembarking... which this thread has proven is not true.


[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Frazzled]Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide [/quote]

The actual mechanics of this have already been covered, so I'll just point out that this isn't a new argument. It was argued on and off last edition as well. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766580.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766580.page GMT LGS we measure to and from the base, including meltas at half range etc cause of this kind of crap]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766619.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766619.page GMT
But the fact that there [i]is[/i] a Z, and that Z can be different depending on where the model is placed, proves that the game is inherently 3D.

Specifically, we don't need a rule covering how the Z axis works, because it works automatically. A model's height is determined by where it is standing rather than by specific rules governing height.

[/quote]

But the BIG difference here is that the Valkyrie's Z is significantly different to any other model's Z given the same X+Y coordinates. Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level). Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766775.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766775.page GMT
Sure, but that's a side effect of GW packaging it with a honking great base, not a product of an inherently 2D ruleset...


[quote] Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level).[/quote]

Except for skimmers and jetbikes, obviously...


[quote] Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.[/quote]

I agree. But I'm not sure now if you're responding to my post or just making a random point...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766800.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766800.page GMT
IMO this is just more people stuck in 4th ed thinking.

Many people played 4th ed LoS wrong, and as a result played a largely 2D game. Now that TLoS has been "introduced" (again... it existed in 4th ed, people just didn't realize it) and there is even more affirmation that 40k is indeed a 3D game (every time you check LoS you're using three dimensions), but people don't want to change how they've been playing.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766829.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766829.page GMT
Sure, but that's a side effect of GW packaging it with a honking great base, not a product of an inherently 2D ruleset...


[quote] Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level).[/quote]

Except for skimmers and jetbikes, obviously...
[/quote]
Well.. not really. The game wouldn't function significantly different if Skimmers were one inch closer to the ground/


[quote] Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.[/quote]

I agree. But I'm not sure now if you're responding to my post or just making a random point...[/quote][/quote]

Isn't the honking great base what the entire issue is about ? The big base, in my opinion, calls into question some of the 2D aspects of the game.

Maybe 'inherently 2D' isn't what I'm looking for as an explanation. Its more like... not significantly 3D enough. There haven't been any aspects of the game where significant height variation on the model has been a factor, yet.
Specifically, all the rules in 40k seem to assume that your model is touching the ground, or at least close enough that it doesn't matter. For most units and vehicles, the point where their base touches the ground is where anything significant is determined from. In the cases where it isn't (tall vehicles/walkers with weapons etc) the model extends the entire way from the base to the weapon. The Valkyrie is the first unit that contradicts this.
To me, is seems that the rules are a little unclear of where the Valkyrie actually is. In LOS terms, it is up in the air. In assault terms, its on the ground. In shooting terms, on the ground. In transport terms, in the air. It is the first unit to have ever had these problems and there are some logical incosistancies applying
I'm not really sure what I'm arguing anymore.
Fix Valkyrie rules pls

[quote] Z height is not the same for any units on a hill or in ruins either. [/quote]
For any given X/Y coordinates, there is a set Z coordinate, or an array of specific Z coordinates. If there is flat ground at (10,10), then no matter what unit type, you are at z=0. If there is a hill at (10,20) you are at z=2. If there is a building at (20,20), then you are either at z=0 OR z=3 OR z=6. If you move one model from (10,20) and move another model into the vacated position, both of them were at Z=2.
Except for the Valkyrie, which can't decide if it is at Z=2 or Z=7. It is quite literally in its own plane.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766941.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766941.page GMT LoS is drawn from a model's "eyes." or the weapon if mounted on a vehicle.

Since different models are different sizes, the Z coordinate from which they draw LoS are individual to each model independent (at least partially) of the height of the terrain they are standing on.

40k is 3D almost entirely.

The only real exception that I can find is for working out how many hits a template or blast causes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766956.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/766956.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767385.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767385.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767388.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767388.page GMT
Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767391.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767391.page GMT
I wasn't suggesting that it would. I was respondng to your claim that all models other than the Valk are at ground level, nothing more.


[quote] Isn't the honking great base what the entire issue is about ?[/quote]

The post you were responding to was about whether or not the game is inherently 3D. You point that a particular model with a honking great base needs special rules to function (which I've never disagreed with in the first place) seemed an odd response to that.


[quote]There haven't been any aspects of the game where significant height variation on the model has been a factor, yet.[/quote]

Other than LOS?


[quote]Specifically, all the rules in 40k seem to assume that your model is touching the ground, or at least close enough that it doesn't matter.[/quote]

Well, yes, of course they do. Because gravity works.

That doesn't make the game 2D, because it's still using 3D models, and using a LOS system that relies on tracing a line from the model's head (in its actual, physical, 3D location) to the target's body (in its actual, physical, 3D location).

For the game to be functionally 2D we would ignore the physical model, and any terrain it is standing on, and just trace a line from model base to model base, and check if there's anything in between.



[quote] For most units and vehicles, the point where their base touches the ground is where anything significant is determined from.[/quote]

Again, not because the game is 2-dimensional, but because for the mechanics that rely on models touching, or for measuring distances, that's the most convenient point, because that's where the base that defines the model's footprint is.

But all that base does is define a footprint, not define the entire model, as would be the case in a 2D game.


[quote] In the cases where it isn't (tall vehicles/walkers with weapons etc) the model extends the entire way from the base to the weapon. [/quote]

Not sure what you mean here.


[quote]To me, is seems that the rules are a little unclear of where the Valkyrie actually is. In LOS terms, it is up in the air. In assault terms, its on the ground. In shooting terms, on the ground. In transport terms, in the air.[/quote]

In all of these cases, it's in the air. The assault rules allow you to assault the skimmer by contacting the base because assaulting involves grenades, short ranged shooting and rock hurling as well as fisticuffs.



[quote]If there is flat ground at (10,10), then no matter what unit type, you are at z=0.[/quote]

Unless you're a skimmer or a jetbike, in which case you're at z=0+ somewhere between half an inch and an inch and a half, depending on the flight stem used.

And when referencing points on the model, (drawing LOS from the model, for example) the z will potentially be different for every different model.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767393.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767393.page GMT
Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?[/quote]

Because LOS requires literally being able to trace a line from the weapon to the model. If anything, they limited the arc from a full 90 degress of vertical arc.

Look, models can be higher or lower, that's undisputed. there simply are hills. I think the more references there are to specfic rules that explain how things work in 3d, the better the evidence is that the overall rules don't really operate in 3d. They're rules exceptions.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767398.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767398.page GMT
Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?[/quote]

Because LOS requires literally being able to trace a line from the weapon to the model. If anything, they limited the arc from a full 90 degress of vertical arc.

Look, models can be higher or lower, that's undisputed. there simply are hills. I think the more references there are to specfic rules that explain how things work in 3d, the better the evidence is that the overall rules don't really operate in 3d. They're rules exceptions.[/quote]

I think that's kind of my point: a core rule (Line of Sight) is completely three dimensional, and is determined by the actual size, shape, and even mobility of the model firing the weapon... so why should three-dimensional rules be considered exceptions rather than the norm?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767434.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/241595/767434.page GMT