So, in a couple of other threads a heated debate was sparked when I suggested that players follow the rules of the game when using their Valkyrie models.

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 you going to play your valkyries?

The only thing I would allow is embarking and Disembarking, measuring from the access points on a Horizontal plane (Especially since the rules actually work like that, see the diagrams for disembarking and for buildings too)o

And your point about the rhino is spot on, it can't capture 6" up, so a Valk Cannot Capture 6" down

I think its pretty silly that the embarking problems didn't occur in test games for 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.

It probably never came up because they probably didn't follow the rules in their test games. I mean, they don't play by the rules in WD, so why would their 'play tests' be any different?

Does this mean that units can disembark and start floating?

In most cases, I'd prolly let the person treat it as any other vehicle. Other factors could play into how I'd play it, though. If the 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.

it is a gunboat skimmer, it is the same as a Wave Serpent.

Tacobake wrote:it is a gunboat skimmer, it is the same as a Wave Serpent.

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?

Include a few pieces of terrain that are a few inches tall. They can disembark onto higher terrain, or they can use the grav chute insertion. No reason to modify rules when it can easily be made playable using the existing ones.

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.

Tacobake wrote:it is a gunboat skimmer, it is the same as a Wave Serpent.

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.

>.> Now I want to model a Rhino with a front hatch.

Um, doesn't the codex define the hatch?

So I read the whole thing, I get the problem is the 10" base issue. Note that as a bonus the thing does not block 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.

Fortunately, all my objectives are 12" tall.

Considering that the Valkyrie is a flier maybe it shouldn't be allowed to do normal disembarks, just grav chute insertions. Fluff wise fliers have min speeds right?

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.

It has to come on the base, but it doesn't have to be on the stand/ the stand can be shorter.

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.

willydstyle wrote:So, in a couple of other threads a heated debate was sparked when I suggested that players follow the rules of the game when using their Valkyrie models.

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 you going to play your valkyries?

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

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

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

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

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 .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PErEsNhDmo8&feature=PlayList&p=9C0741286C81F8F3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10

It also depends on what you use for an objective. I have generic objective markers from GF9 that are pretty much coin sized. When I asked people to model and paint their own objective markers for a tournament a month or so back, I'd say 90% of the stuff people made were more than 2" tall.

Are people really still arguing about this? I mean come on. Anyone who is arguing about this is just blatant rules lawyering from people bitching about how guard have changed the metagame. Just measure from the base for all intent and purposes. Because if it isn't what you are saying is that there is no point to having troops in the valk because by the 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.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:It has to come on the base, but it doesn't have to be on the stand/ the stand can be shorter.

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.

Caffran9 wrote: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 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.

Well, in order for us to be allowed to change/modify the base, we need a rule doing so.

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.

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel 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.

Steelmage99 wrote:Well, in order for us to be allowed to change/modify the base, we need a rule doing so. 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.".

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.

willydstyle wrote:place blast markers before measuring range

Actually, he is alowed to measure range first, but only after declaring his shooting. Placing the Blast marker Replaces the "Roll to hit" Step of Shooting, which is Step 3. Measuring the Range to the Target Unit is Step 2. So you actually have to measure the range first, place the Blast marker, then measure again to see if it is out of range or not

Page 15 wrote:THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE
1 Check line of sight & pick a target.
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.

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

3 Roll to hit.
Roll a D6 for each shot fired. The model's BS determines what score they must equal or beat to hit their target.

BLAST
Blast weapons fire shells, missiles or bolts of energy that explode on impact.

When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (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, check if the shot has landed on target. 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.

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel 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.

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?

moosifer wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel 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.

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?

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.

Actually, it is assaultable, with skimmers, you can charge the base. Note, it does specifically state that you still measure to the hull for everything else.

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel 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.

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.

dumplingman wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel 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.

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.

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.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting, not arguing the # of angels dancing on a pinhead for fun here, but in the REAL WORLD that this precludes them from deploying troops?

*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)?

Frazzled wrote:
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)?

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.

So you're postulating this for real life (TM) gaming and not just having fun exploring the limitaiton of GW writing ability?

Er...ok....

Sorry, I was responding to your questions that I quoted, not to whether I would expect someone to play by the rules in an actual game.

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.

Kaaihn wrote:Sorry, I was responding to your questions that I quoted, not to whether I would expect someone to play by the rules in an actual game.

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.

gotcha. I like your turnabout justice.

The writing of the rule in the codex makes it clear they indended regular disembarkation, this is the kind of thing that makes Jervis Johnson talk about how competitive gamers hurt the hobby.

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.

*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.

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.

Did i read that the fler IS able to assaulted? I was under the impression you could not assault its base.

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

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.

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.

Deuce11 wrote:Did i read that the fler IS able to assaulted? I was under the impression you could not assault its base.

As has been mentioned, the assault rules specifically allow you to assault skimmers by moving into contact with the base or the hull.

insaniak wrote:

Deuce11 wrote:Did i read that the fler IS able to assaulted? I was under the impression you could not assault its base.

As has been mentioned, the assault rules specifically allow you to assault skimmers by moving into contact with the base or the hull.

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.

Yes.

In terms of 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?

Work with me on this but I think I might have a middle ground solution that fluffers and 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

Remember folks, GW is a minatures company, not a gaming company. Sigh.

The bottom line is that if you follow the rules exactly as they're written now, then Valks are clearly acting in a way that the authors didn't intend. 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.

It's quite simple for me:
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.

I will not vote in this biased and stupidly worded poll.

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.

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
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.

Sounds reasonable.

I think everyone is in agreement that they wouldn't force their opponent to play by 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.

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
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.

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.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
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.

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.

And yet I've had people who seem to be getting seriously angry at me...

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
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.

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.

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?

I'm of the thought that units should be able to embark/disembark as per the diagrammed examples in the rulebook (top-down orientation only, nothing requiring 2" vertical space), though this does seem to permit the deployment out of other transports on the level above or below the one the vehicle is on.

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

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:I'm of the thought that units should be able to embark/disembark as per the diagrammed examples in the rulebook (top-down orientation only, nothing requiring 2" vertical space),...

The examples being top-down does not preclude any need to measure vertically, particularly when the rules never actual say 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 on only one plane 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.

It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

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."

Yeah, yeah, I know. The intent is there, but for dense players (like me) there needs to be more.

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

In a tournament setting, I would probably call 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".

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call 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".

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 never be able to get in half-range I don't see it as being unfair.

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW.

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...

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW.

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...

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

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

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.

I agree that the RAI and the actual rules that are written in the rulebook and codex may 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 not 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.

Kasrkin, we follow the rules to avoid bizarre situations. What do the rules tell us? "Measure to the hull." So we do that. If you don't want to follow the rules, go ahead. I doubt going "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.

willydstyle wrote:

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

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."

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.

RustyKnight wrote:Kasrkin, we follow the rules to avoid bizarre situations. What do the rules tell us? "Measure to the hull." So we do that. If you don't want to follow the rules, go ahead. I doubt going "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.

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.

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

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."

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.

Because most of the deployment rules actually state "farther than 12" from the center of the board" and other phrases like that.

Yeah, but when they did say 12" from the table edged in previous editions, no one ever took verticle distance into account. There is a precedent within 40k to not be so strict with verticle distances...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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...

Kasrkinlegion wrote:Yeah, but when they did say 12" from the table edged in previous editions, no one ever took verticle distance into account. There is a precedent within 40k to not be so strict with verticle distances...

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.

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

Not a new solution, sorry. It inevitably gets dragged out by someone every time we have a discussion on skimmers and their bases.

willydstyle wrote:

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW.

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...

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

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.

Well here is my take on it after very carefully studying the rules especially for the rules lawyers. I look at what is defined as the “Base” of the skimmer as the oval shaped black part of the model for the Valkyire. It’s the portion of the model that people can charge along with the hull not the clear “Stand or Flying Base”. The clear portion of the model is what attaches the model to the “base” and is called the “Stand or Flying Base”. Nowhere does it say that you can’t modify a model or the “Stand or Flying Base” or your models. In fact it doesn’t say you can’t modify the “base” anywhere only make sure you opponent doesn’t mind first.

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.

broxus wrote:said a bunch of rules-lawyery stuff

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.

The valkyrie is only thing I look at and say "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?

willydstyle wrote:

broxus wrote:said a bunch of rules-lawyery stuff

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.

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.

Polonius wrote: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"?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gandair wrote: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?

Gandair is correct. Page 71: 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.

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.

Kaaihn wrote:

Polonius wrote: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"?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gandair wrote: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?

Gandair is correct. Page 71: 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.

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.

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.

Yeah, you quoted before I could edit my mistake out. The intent is right, how I was presenting it was wrong.

The rule in full is: 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.

"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?

Ignoring the base doesn't mean ignoring the height of the hull. Because disembarking happens from the access points on the hull, the height of the hull matters.

Ah, nevermind. The base is ignored for measuring purposes, it doesn't mean you ignore its existence and measure like the hull is on the ground. I'm interpreting that sentence wrong.

I am curious if anyone has emailed 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.

Here is the ruling from the main judge from the Big Waaagh 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

Wildeyedjester wrote:Here is the ruling from the main judge from the Big Waaagh 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

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.

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)

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

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.

nostromo wrote:

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.

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.

If a player is always sticking you with strict 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.

I just hope there isn't an 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...

Here is the section from the 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].

I like to think of the Valk and its base/stand as an abstract entity, representing a fast, skimmer, transport, that flies around, letting people grav chute insert from altitude, fly low to allow disembarkation (with rapid assent), and hover at varying altitudes. To me the stand and model size represents the general footprint of the unit in general, such that it is a very visible model, but for the purposes of disembarking, I can either do grav chute insertion, or disembark out of its access points assuming it gets closer to the ground for drop off and likewise for embarkation, where it momentarily lowers itself for pickup. This should be considered a transient state and for the purposes of the movement phase is negligible.

EDIT: Removed the (like rotating a vehicle) since this would actually have game impact.

Is there any reason you can't just place your models 2" away from the valk and let them drop onto the table?

willydstyle wrote:

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.

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.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Is there any reason you can't just place your models 2" away from the valk and let them drop onto the table?

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.

Correct me if I'm totally off track, but if the ruling was that Valks could embark/disembark, wouldn't weapons also measure to the base?

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.

Wildeyedjester wrote:Here is the section from the 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].

I could live with this because it would mean I wouldn't have to carry that god awful flying stand to tournaments...

I think if you are going to unload troops or capture a location, you should bring the ship off the base for that turn and only put it on the base on the next turn or when you move it again. The cost of dropping troops or capturing a point should be a risk (read - being on the ground and vulnerable just like any other flying vehicle). Hovering 10 inches above the LZ or objective just doesn't cut it imo.

Flexen wrote:I think if you are going to unload troops or capture a location, you should bring the ship off the base for that turn and only put it on the base on the next turn or when you move it again. The cost of dropping troops or capturing a point should be a risk (read - being on the ground and vulnerable just like any other flying vehicle). Hovering 10 inches above the LZ or objective just doesn't cut it imo.

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

willydstyle wrote:

Flexen wrote:I think if you are going to unload troops or capture a location, you should bring the ship off the base for that turn and only put it on the base on the next turn or when you move it again. The cost of dropping troops or capturing a point should be a risk (read - being on the ground and vulnerable just like any other flying vehicle). Hovering 10 inches above the LZ or objective just doesn't cut it imo.

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

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.

If this is true for the Valkyrie then its true for the scout landspeeder the landspeeder prong thing that comes with it is more than 2inches tall. 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.


I say measure horizantally without regard for height by the way.

Models can easily disembark from a Land Speeder Storm or Raider because their heads can be within 2" of the access point (the hull, in the case of the open-topped speeder).

Wildeyedjester wrote:Here is the ruling from the main judge from the Big Waaagh 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

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.

I think thats the crux of the matter. I've not seen the 3rd dimension utilized in deployment before.

bigtmac68 wrote:

Wildeyedjester wrote:Here is the ruling from the main judge from the Big Waaagh 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

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.

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 none of the disadvantages.

Every other vehicle in the game 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.

Could you put bosspoles on your guardsmen so they'd be within the two inches?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Could you put bosspoles on your guardsmen so they'd be within the two inches?

If they all have one how will they figure out who's da real boss?

His pole will be... uh... bossier?

willydstyle wrote:Models can easily disembark from a Land Speeder Storm or Raider because their heads can be within 2" of the access point (the hull, in the case of the open-topped speeder).

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?

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Models can easily disembark from a Land Speeder Storm or Raider because their heads can be within 2" of the access point (the hull, in the case of the open-topped speeder).

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?

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 some 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 model has to be within 2".

I just want to clarify that I think following the 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).

RustyKnight wrote:I just want to clarify that I think following the 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).

I agree with you. I just think that players should know all the pertinent rules before they decide which ones they need to break to make the model playable, and also discuss it with your opponents before just assuming that you have the right to play by whatever variant rules you want.

If only it were so easy.

To get to the othe-KILL MAIM BURN!!!

That actually not true. You can read the example for movement and proper movement you cannot measure for instance from the point of a heavy weapon gun that reaches beyond the models base. It even states to disregard miscelleaneous features of a model; The only time that applies is that you do not have to see a models base to shoot at it.

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.

bigtmac68 wrote:

Wildeyedjester wrote:Here is the ruling from the main judge from the Big Waaagh 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

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.

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.

The examples are just that: examples.

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 very clearly 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.

willydstyle wrote: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.

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.

insaniak wrote:

willydstyle wrote: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.

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.

Good call.

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

Hollismason wrote:If this is true for the Valkyrie then its true for the scout landspeeder the landspeeder prong thing that comes with it is more than 2inches tall.

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.

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.

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

I say measure horizantally without regard for height by the way.

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.

Older 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.

Hollimason, what's your take on scoring in regards to high up objectives and melta weapons?

willydstyle wrote:

insaniak wrote:

willydstyle wrote: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.

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.

Good call.

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

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...

Hollismason wrote:Older 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.

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.

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."

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 aware 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 other house rule.

Taking your house rule and assuming that it's the only way to play the game is where problems lie.

Like Flexen said if you ignore the vertical plane things get dicey. Disembarking from a tank to the 3rd level of a building doesn't seem right.

No Offence, but if you DO consider the vertical plane, thats the only way you CAN disembark from a Valk

Which brings us back to: The rules in this situation just don't work properly. Sort it out with your opponent.

Well given that the current ruling for the Indy 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.

bigtmac68 wrote:Well given that the current ruling for the Indy 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.

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.

Kaaihn wrote:Include a few pieces of terrain that are a few inches tall. They can disembark onto higher terrain, or they can use the grav chute insertion. No reason to modify rules when it can easily be made playable using the existing ones.
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.

bigtmac68 wrote:It is however very clear that the intent was for them to be able to disembark.

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..."

willydstyle wrote:
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.

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.

What if you were to attack the Valk to the base by a ball joint located near the nose and rotate it so the tail is pointed towards the ground for disembarking and scoring, and point it up normally for all other purposes? That would fit with the rotation vehicles rules seeing as nothing says you can't rotate them in 3 dimensions. That being said, could you rotate a landraider 90 degrees up on its rear if it were to give you an advantage?

nostromo wrote: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..."

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.

Norade wrote:What if you were to attack the Valk to the base by a ball joint located near the nose and rotate it so the tail is pointed towards the ground for disembarking and scoring, and point it up normally for all other purposes? That would fit with the rotation vehicles rules seeing as nothing says you can't rotate them in 3 dimensions. That being said, could you rotate a landraider 90 degrees up on its rear if it were to give you an advantage?

I like this idea

Course, I just like it 'cause it would make for the most awesome armored advance in the history of 40k.

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..."

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 STILL 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.

bigtmac68 wrote:

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..."

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 STILL 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.

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

Its quite simple really, trim the base down, and say it was broken when you got it.

No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.

Wow the rules say to measure from the base? Please quote that rule.

It doesn't. People are idiots who play Househammer 40k

Dracos wrote:Wow the rules say to measure from the base? Please quote that rule.

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.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Its quite simple really, trim the base down, and say it was broken when you got it.

No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.

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

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:It doesn't. People are idiots who play Househammer 40k

Using Houserules is only for idiots?

Numpty!

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Its quite simple really, trim the base down, and say it was broken when you got it.

No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.

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.

bigtmac68 wrote: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)

The example does not 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.

Flexen wrote: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.

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...

insaniak wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote: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)

The example does not 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.

Flexen wrote: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.

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...

I took that rule as to pertain to shooting and not disembarking. On page 71 it says nothing about disembarking troops.

It does mention access points...

Flexen wrote:I took that rule as to pertain to shooting and not disembarking. On page 71 it says nothing about disembarking troops.

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.

RustyKnight wrote:It does mention access points...

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.

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.

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 actually says. 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.

The debate about the verticle axis is really crux of this matter. Here's the problem: 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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

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.

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 actually says. 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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

There's no mention of the x or y axis either. So which way can 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 need 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Danny Internets wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Double post. Darn Quote button where the Edit button should be...

insaniak wrote:

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

There's no mention of the x or y axis either. So which way can models move?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Polonius wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Polonius wrote: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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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've seen plays it by the rules actually mean that nobody anywhere plays it by the rules?

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.

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.

Well, first off, I made the mistake of assuming my own experience is typical, and that's my bad.

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.

Polonius wrote: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.

No, moving in 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...

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.

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...

aha! I actually found the rule that vindicates you guys. P. 82, "coping with different Heights" specifically states that when firing between different levels, to angle the measuring tape, taking the z-axis into account.

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.

Polonius wrote:Bu then, that same paragraph states that distances are measured to the hull except for things like access points, "which all work as normal."

'As normal' of course meaning 'measure to the access point itself'... Sounds like you figured that, but thought it was worth mentioning for clarity.

Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

By 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 the 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.

Frazzled wrote:Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

I play using 3d measurement, because it's what's most intuitive.

Frazzled wrote:Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

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.

insaniak wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

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.

I think that the "2D plane" idea may stem from the fact that everybody 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.

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?

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.

Flexen wrote: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?

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.

Flexen wrote: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?

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.

40k is not a matter of belief. 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?

insaniak wrote:

Flexen wrote: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?

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.

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.

Danny Internets wrote: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.

Well, that's certainly true. But the reason the "rule is consciosuly being broken" is because the rules are 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 impossible to ever play a game of Warhammer 40,000 by only using the RAW. "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.

insaniak wrote:

Flexen wrote: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?

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.

Alerian wrote:

Flexen wrote: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?

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.

40k is not a matter of belief. 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?

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?

Well, that's certainly true. But the reason the "rule is consciosuly being broken" is because the rules are 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.

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.

Dave47 wrote:-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.

That logic doesn't actually work.

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

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

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.

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

They do? Where?

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.

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 amongst players 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.

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

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 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.

Im not saying that the rule clearly states a 2d world, im saying it ignores it but all examples are 2d.

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.

Dave47 wrote:-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.

While I agree that you should embark measuring to the base and stuff, correlation does not imply causality.

hmm... well I guess that means that my grey knights are gonna have a rough fall when they land...

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?)

Polonius wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Flexen wrote: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?

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.

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.

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?

Valks can't ram because they aren't tanks. Whether they can be rammed themselves I am not so sure. Ramming is to come into contact with the model. I guess the base is part of the model so maybe it counts.

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.

At my local club we have been testing some rules and this is what we have come up with.
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.

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote: 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???

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.

Insanik,

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).

I actually think that there is probably a whole paragraph missing from the Valkyrie entry that was intended to explain this as it seems from the battle report that they had a very clear idea of how disembarkation worked.

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.

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:Insanik,

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).

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.

I can't be bothered to read all this so here's my 2p

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

dr vompire wrote:FFS "smacks opponent round head"

*Nonsense*

but i'm not a jerk

Right...

Thanks for addning nothing to the discussion.

Hmm... I'd say that it would have to be from that facing of the base for it to work. There should have been some sorto f 'landing' rule in the codex, but I find this oversight to be one of many perplexing ones that have come out of the new codex (anyone have a model of Pask? Says it has to be the Tank Ace model, but as far as I've been able to determine, no one I know of seems to have one)

willydstyle wrote:

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:Insanik,

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).

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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:Insanik,

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).

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.

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.

And every other skimmer in the game measures from its hull for contesting objectives, and measures 2" from access points for embarking/disembarking.

And none of them have this as an issue.

"And every other skimmer in the game measures from its hull for contesting objectives, and measures 2" from access points for embarking/disembarking. "

and every other skimmer in the game didn't get stuck with that flying base either.

alarmingrick wrote:"And every other skimmer in the game measures from its hull for contesting objectives, and measures 2" from access points for embarking/disembarking. "

and every other skimmer in the game didn't get stuck with that flying base either.

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.

I would say he sucks and I would regret having wasted valuable hours of my life playing him. Thats not true, I would not have played him in the first place.

The point is, this opponenet would have every right to deny the Valk from contesting. By RAW, th ehull is not within 3" of the 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.

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.

You know, it occurs to me... are we measuring the vertical distance from the bottom or top of the model or objective to determine the distance to the Valk?

BaronIveagh wrote:You know, it occurs to me... are we measuring the vertical distance from the bottom or top of the model or objective to determine the distance to the Valk?

From closest point to closest point, as that would be the line "between" the two objects.

Frazzled wrote:
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.

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.

Danny Internets wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
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.

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.

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

Frazzled wrote:
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.

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.

willydstyle wrote:
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

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.

I brought up the topic of valkyries not being able to contest flat ground objectives to an 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".

So... [puts on fire retarding suit and steps in gently]....

pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, 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.

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.

jgemrich wrote:So... [puts on fire retarding suit and steps in gently]....

pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, 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.

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.

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.

Where on 71 does it supercede the fact that a model occupies the area of its base?

Because it states that the base is ignored for all purposes other than assaulting the vehicle.

jgemrich wrote:So... [puts on fire retarding suit and steps in gently]....

pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, 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.

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.

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. Instead, for distances involving a
vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other
decorative elements)."

So much for that.

crawls back under rock...

Thanks. : D

insaniak wrote: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.

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."

insaniak wrote: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.

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.

Am I correct in that the only actual issue is the scenic base the Valkyrie/Vendetta comes with, not the model or its rules themselves?

Dave, what's your stand on Melta Weapons shooting at valks, disembarking onto tall buildings, and contesting objectives on the third floor?

Dave47 wrote:allow the Valkyrie to function as any other skimmer.

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.

Thats how our group intends to play it, like any other normal skimmer with not more than 2in height for all measuring purposes. If there is an objective in a building at height then upwards movement rules apply like any other mini.

Dave47 wrote: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."

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

insaniak wrote: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."

So how do you decide which ones are 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.

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

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.

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.

Who was doing that?

I'm curious why this never came up with wave serpents trying to disembark ten men...I don't think any of the flying stands are short enough for the miniatures bases to all be within 2 inches of the door...

Jack

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).

Jackmojo wrote:I'm curious why this never came up with wave serpents trying to disembark ten men...I don't think any of the flying stands are short enough for the miniatures bases to all be within 2 inches of the door...

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...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote: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).

All of the regular stands are less than 2" tall. I gave the measurements earlier in the thread

insaniak wrote:

Dave47 wrote: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."

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

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?

Waaaaaaagh! wrote: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?

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.

It is though, you have been allowed to model for advantage since Rouge Trader. Whether your opponent objects or not is up to them

Find the rule in the rulebook that allows it.



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

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

insaniak wrote:Find the rule in the rulebook that allows it.



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

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

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

And?

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.

Nowhere does it say the Citadel Models must be unconverted with other Citadel Model Bits

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Nowhere does it say the Citadel Models must be unconverted with other Citadel Model Bits

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.

No, I'm not.

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.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:The Rules say you may Play with Citadel Miniatures.

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.

insaniak wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:The Rules say you may Play with Citadel Miniatures.

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.

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.

O...k...

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.

I might point out that several big tourney's have rules re this, permitting modded models as long as it's either 50% 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.

NeoMaul wrote:Considering that the Valkyrie is a flier maybe it shouldn't be allowed to do normal disembarks, just grav chute insertions. Fluff wise fliers have min speeds right?

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.

For rules purposes, they made it into a fast skimmer, so maybe it is supposed to be a vert takeoff/landing vehicle

It doesn't say I cannot smash your models with a Hammer there for I can.


Seriously that is a weak strawman argument.

Hollismason wrote:It doesn't say I cannot smash your models with a Hammer there for I can.


Seriously that is a weak strawman argument.

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.

BaronIveagh wrote:I might point out that several big tourney's have rules re this, permitting modded models as long as it's either 50% 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.

Dunno, had a lot of people complain that their IG with Pig Iron 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.

Norade wrote: 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.

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.

I was just looking through Games Workshop's White Dwarf #352 (US) and on page 57 it gives a clear example of a squad embarking into a Valkyrie. So that whole argument about the 5" stand precluding such a move is kaput. And if a Valk can be within 2" of embarking/disembarking minies the whole argument about it being too far way to contest objectives is also dead. Of course this does put the Valk's in short melta range etc. So its a double edged sword for Valk players 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.

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:I was just looking through Games Workshop's White Dwarf #352 (US) and on page 57 it gives a clear example of a squad embarking into a Valkyrie. So that whole argument about the 5" stand precluding such a move is kaput. And if a Valk can be within 2" of embarking/disembarking minies the whole argument about it being too far way to contest objectives is also dead. Of course this does put the Valk's in short melta range etc. So its a double edged sword for Valk players 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.

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.

I could've sworn someone had already brought up the WD article...

Disucss it with my opponent ahead of time and play it consistantly. If he wants the base to count, it counts for capturing objectives AND for meltagun range.

If he wants the hull to count, it wont capture objectives on its stand but true measure for range weapons like meltaguns.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you supposed to measure from the bases of the models?

For everything that has a base, except skimmers, yes.

I believe everything should be measured to, and played from the base of the model just like any other skimmer/flyer.

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.

Kreedos wrote:I believe everything should be measured to, and played from the base of the model just like any other skimmer/flyer.

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

GWAR you're a 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...

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

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.

1) Necron Destroyers aren't Skimmers.

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.

Frazzled wrote:GWAR you're a 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...

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

Kreedos wrote:

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

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.

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!

It came with that base because originally it was a flyer from 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.

My friend who is trying Air Cav deploys them in all sorts of places that the Valk/Detta can still get. Buildings, large hills, turbines, anything that is high enough will work.

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!

I just double checked this and you're right, I thought they were skimmers that moved like jet bikes.

However this

Please, double check the rules before posting in a Rules debate!

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.

Frazzled wrote: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...

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 this 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.

@Kreedos: No Offence intended. Just some friendly advice.

Gwar! wrote:@Kreedos: No Offence intended. Just some friendly advice.

No problem =), Thanks.

Kreedos wrote:

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.

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.

From what I've heard monoliths block line of sight,

Everything blocks LOS, so yes, that's correct.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Good point. I stand corrected.

insaniak wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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...

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 this 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.

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.

Because it's so much harder than simply using the model as it is on the table.

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.

I only read the initial post but I can see this is getting a bit full. I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame. If thats gonna be your game. Just glue a ball joint at the top of the base and angle down the Valk so the wing comes within 3" when you need to capture. your still playing it on the base and now you are within 3".

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

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

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?

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

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?

Of course, just model it on a Ball joint and... wait no that doesn't work.