Most guys in my gaming circle are a pretty mature. Most of us have a similar attitude regarding 40K in that we typically have monthly/weekly friendly games where we will critique (or tease) each others game play, army choices etc. With the ultimate goal of one of us finally finding the ultimate 40K list, the list that can take on all challengers very well in a tournement and not suffer from cheese overload...the one list to rule them all
The Valkyrie appealled to virtually all of us. But we have come to the conclusion that there are just WAY TOO many RAW/RAI conflicts that exist when one tries to use this model. I wont repeat them here, just check out all the other Dakka Valkyrie threads that seem endless. For this reason we are by and large ceasing purchasing this model until GW gets its act together (FAQ etc.). And I wont even play the things, mine personally will sit on the shelf for the time being. My free time is too valuable to spend 30+ minutes per game discussing how rule X MIGHT work for the Valkyrie. And I might even avoid other folks in pick up games if I see they want to use a Valkyrie.
My questions to the forum are will GW get the message? Will other gamer-consumers follow suit? Does GW even have a clue that something is wrong? It seems to me that GW has this attitude that gamers who want precise rules are somehow missing the 'fun' aspects of their games and that maybe we should be discounted? Do you get that vibe?
While your action is commendable, I do not think it will have the scope necessary to force a response. Probably more effective would be to call on all Dakkaites and your gaming friends elsewhere to call GW with EVERY SINGLE problem they encounter with the model. That way the communication is direct to GW and it will likely just be easier for them to FAQ rather than talk about the valk all day.
Frazzled wrote:
Its a skimmer on a tall base. Big deal. Suck it up a little.
Tell you what. Let me relieve your burden. I'll buy ten off you for $5 a piece.
I agree, people should suck it up. Its 5" off the ground and thusly cannot reguarily disembark (to the ground) in addition to some other wonky rules interactions.
Suck it up.
See, I can be that helpful too!
Or are you stating Frazzled, that there are no inherent problems with the model?
And as we all know, flying machines always sit statically in the air at a fixed hieght and certainly NEVER approach the ground for any reason. /sarcasm
Nothing that a pair clippers and 30 seconds of time couldn't fix. Again, in order to ease their burden, I will contribute $50, yes I said $50, out of the goodness of my heart to take 10 off their hands. Because I am a compassionate person.
Wasn't there a thread around here asking if gamers were a whiny group? I think we have the answer ding ding ding!
Nice trolling Frazzled. Selling or otherwise getting rid of their models is not in any way expressed in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marshal Torrick wrote:And as we all know, flying machines always sit statically in the air at a fixed hieght and certainly NEVER approach the ground for any reason. /sarcasm
People, it's a game.
You are right it is a game.
I guess people have to play it by your house rules, eh?
o_o okok if Frazzled is trolling about the $5 per valkyrie (hes not trolling ) , i'll beat his offer , $30 per valkyrie , i'll take them all ( assembled is great too )
Thats not trolling. I am sincerely concerned for their well being, seeing as how their constitution appears so delicate they can't handle one imperfection. I am just trying to be a good dakkaite by easing their pain.
Edit: I see others with more money are also compassionate. See how the Dakka community gives back to its membership
If this is their problem, Life (TM) is going to give them one heck of a surprise.
(translation-gakk try to Man Up at least to the level of an 8 year old, seriously).
Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.
If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.
Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.
It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.
Rule 2: Stay on Topic
After reading and posting at Dakka for awhile you may feel as though you have developed friendships with some, perhaps many, of the other posters and readers. This is probably one of the most rewarding parts of participating in a discussion area. It is only natural to occasionally want to share information with your friends that is "Off Topic" (i.e. not related to the subject matter of the forum you are in).
While it may at first seem harmless to post a bit about off topic (OT) subjects, it can become a slippery slope. If others join in on OT posts then soon everybody has sent the discussion threads on so many tangents that it is difficult to follow the original topic. Further, posting off topic essentially violates Rule #1. People come to Dakka looking for information related to the hobby. It is not polite to post off topic items frequently.
If you wish to discuss a topic that doesn't pertain to wargaming, it should be started in the "Off-Topic" forum.
Seriously, I should not have to quote the forum rules to a mod.
Omg an extra half inch (mine don't have ball mounts as its for the landspeeder) that would make it 2"! wow, if only you could still disembark 2" away.... oh way you can.
Well I'm sure you are referring to a specific model and its access point. Since you don't mention it, and give an "about" number than can disembark, I'm going to have to conclude that you did not test that out in any way and are just pulling it from dark nether regions.
Gratz on making up an example to support your argument.
Well considering that every major tournament coming up has already ruled what any reasonable person would do without being told I dont see the problem.
Seriously, they obviously intended the model to be able to disembark, at my most recent tourney they said just use the base as it is a base not a "clear skimmer base" so they are treating it as such.
boom, problems solved in 10 seconds.
The Big Waagh said to consider it on the ground for the purposes of embark, disembark, assualts ect...
again did not take long, simple common sense
The "RAW" problems are caused by people looking to find a problem rather than a solution.
IMHO, but I only play tourneys coverd by the INATfaq so I dont need to worry about these issues.
Thanks Yak and crew for making my gaming life easier.
I personally find it amazing that people are so narrow minded that a representational 5" flying base means you can no longer disembark. Just treat it as a normal sodding flyer.
OH, and if you are waiting for GW to resolve this with a FAQ, dont. They do not see a problem at all, remember they do not belive in the concept of RAW since the first rule of RAW is that there is no RAW in the mond of GW.
Read Jervis articles in WD and he makes pretty clear that he feels the entire hobby woud be better off without the RAW crowd at all. I dont agree with that extreme, and do agree the rules are a disaster, but its not that hard to deal with.
While I would be happy to explain in detail why simply doing that is an unfair way to play the model, its already been done in the YMTC thread.
I think there is a fair way to play the model though, and I think being condescending that your interpretation of the way to play it is the only way or obvious is just as bad if not worse than whining about the problem.
If I may lend my opinion?
When you want to disembark from a Valk simply remove the flying base place the valk on the ground and deploy around it. Simple and would look cool on the battle field.
Also TLOS means if you can see any part of the model you can shoot it. While this is annoying for Valk users it seems a fair trade off for the amount of tactical flexibility on provides
JohnH's argument is appropriate though. Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0)? Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?
well p.71 explicitly states that skimmers in fact cannot land in battle conditions, so as a house rule its fine but that is against the normal rules.
@ others
Anyways save the discussion about whether the rules work for valks or not for another thread. If you don't like the OPs idea, then dont post or post a polite reason why you disagree.
No need to derail the thread and act condescending.
@ Dracos sorry if you found that post offending. It was not intended to have that effect.
Derail the thread? Its a thread about not buying Valks am I not allowed to defend them?
Frazzled wrote:Its not the size it how you use it?
JohnH's argument is appropriate though. Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0)? Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?
A better understanding of math might help.
Perhaps a better way to state it is that if the bases are 1" wide, the distance to the 2nd rank would be 1.5^2 + 1^2 = D^2
The distance to the 2nd rank would be 1.80277564. Since this triangle is valid for any directions, that makes at least 3 ranks. so if one can disembark @ 1.5 inches, then 9 total models, at least, can.
@yani, sorry I didnt express myself there correctly, only the first line should have been addressed to you.
Its just teething problems eh?? I remember back in 88' when the Landpredator came on the scene - there was uproar. Don't even get me started on the Whirlspeeder!
..
...
(sorry i'll leave this thread now as its clear i have nothing productive to say)
Dracos wrote:While I would be happy to explain in detail why simply doing that is an unfair way to play the model, its already been done in the YMTC thread.
I think there is a fair way to play the model though, and I think being condescending that your interpretation of the way to play it is the only way or obvious is just as bad if not worse than whining about the problem.
I know the points, and could not disagree more strongly. I dont see how its "not fair" to play the model like you would play any other model, as it was obviously inteded.
But we have been around that merry go round a thousand times. We do not and will not agree, and thats fine you have every right to your point of view.
Back to the point of a boycot, thats also your right, but it will acomplish nothing as you are definitely in a strong minority as most people have no problems playing the model normally. Even if they did, GW - DOES NOT CARE!!!
You have to know that by now, so if you want a resolution you have three choices.
1. Use a recognized tournament approved FAQ such as the INAT as your guidline.
2. Use a house rule where you play and check with the TO at any tournaments as to how they will play it.
3. Sell the models to Me, or any of the many others who would be very happy to take them off your hands.
We all make the choice to play a game with some huge holes in it, thats just the nature of the GW hobby. The sooner you accept that and move on to try to enjoy your hobby the happier you, and those you play with will be.
Just My opinion, and sorry if I sounded condecending to you, it was not my intent.
Frazzled wrote:Its not the size it how you use it?
JohnH's argument is appropriate though. Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0)? Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?
A better understanding of math might help.
Perhaps a better way to state it is that if the bases are 1" wide, the distance to the 2nd rank would be 1.5^2 + 1^2 = D^2
The distance to the 2nd rank would be 1.80277564. Since this triangle is valid for any directions, that makes at least 3 ranks. so if one can disembark @ 1.5 inches, then 9 total models, at least, can.
@yani, sorry I didnt express myself there correctly, only the first line should have been addressed to you.
Wrong answer Canadian. As punishment you must ship one dozen Tim Hortons maple glaized my way. You have 2in depolyment from the hatch
less 1.5 vertical drop (watch that first step, its a doosy)
that leaves you with .5in remaining.
At this point you have a legal decision tree.
1. Do I accept that a 1in base may fit in that remaining .5in? If yes (accepted as its says contact within 2in) then:
2. You get one rank, one uno einz rank of 1in minis to feet. Else you're cheating you cheating McCheaterton beacuse you've moved more than 2in in total on the 3D perspective. So whats you're max? Remember girls there's no rule permitting you to place minis under your skimmer. Its definitely not a full squad. Unless of course, you're cheating you bunch of cheaters.
Umm frazzled the whole base does not have to fit inside the .5 inches (which is basically an erroneous premise anyways, as you should be using the correct math to figure out the distance if you are not just going to measure it anyways) the closes part of the base only has to be within that distance. Check out p.3 of BGB to figure out how to measure distance in WH40k. Closest side of base, not the far side.
To keep things simple, I think I will just put my valkyries on those small "clear plastic flynig bases" the rulebook talks about, instead of these really large, half clear, half black stilettoheel bases that seem to have no reference whatsoever in the rulebook. Should make things much easier.
When disembarking each model must be deployed within the 2". So, going on your example, you have one dude that can go down 1.5 inches of an access point and be deployed there.
Next we look at deploying additional models around that dude. Note they do not have to move in a direct line down then out (is that what you are saying? I don't see that supported anywhere) but are simply deployed within 2". So, if i put a guy directly adjacent to the first, in any direct, you can draw a triangle from the point directly above the first model (which we know to be 1.5 inches in this example) and then along the ground to the edge of the closest side of the base of the 2nd model. This is where that math formula comes in, because it tells us EXACTLY what that 3rd distance going from the 2nd model back to the access point is based on the first 2 measurements.
the 1.58 inches is how far away the 2nd model would be from the access point.
Its really simple math here, like junior high math.
1. I don't believe you. That doesn't work because it overlaps the first row-remember the other guys' base are 1in as well, and you can't have anything underslung under the skimmer. If I could draw it would be easier-a stencil a stencil my kingdom for a stencil!
2. I'm a lawyer. Nothing is fixed, including numbers.
Wow 46 replies in just a few hours and only about 5 of you managed to stay on topic.
Although it certainly was not the point of my post, you folks certainly have proven why this model is so controversial as to be pretty much unplayable IMHO. The guys I game with are probably a lot like most of you and the very points many of you make are the same things we discussed. And these are just not topics I want to spend my gaming night discussing (as I stated in the OP). So on the shelf they stay (now for those of you who have reading comprehension problems let me clearly state that there is no 'for sale' offer in that statement).
A big thank you to the folks who did stay on topic.
I know the points, and could not disagree more strongly. I dont see how its "not fair" to play the model like you would play any other model
You create house rules for all of your other models?
No of course not, its not necessary. The game plays just fine using the Valk as any other model. Using the base as a measuring point does not do anything to make the Valkyrie "not fair". Nor does using 2D deployment for the Valk, like everyone has always done with every other skimmer.
Nor does using the Big Waagh Ruling, or the ruling expected for the INATfaq. They all allow you to disembark normally as the designers intended without causing any "unfair" penalty on any other models.
This is a manufactured controversey that serves no positive purpose.
Frazzled wrote:I pulled out the trusty old ruler. You're right. You could do two ranks (maximum) assuming 1in bases.
Houston I think we have a problem with, all skimmers buahaha if we apply this rule.
And what I've pointed out is only actually true if the access point is actually just a singular, small "point" on the model. If it is say a 2 or 3" long access point, I could easily see deploying 10-15 models using the same practical application of the same formula. As it is, just the one model @ 1.5 inches was enough to get 8 more out in 1.58 inches (total 9).
If we were sitting in a room together, I would be feeding you those delicious timmy's maple doughnuts while exploring individual models to see which do/do not confict with this rule. This hypothetical doesnt prove anything other than the standard 1.5" base COULD allow a skimmer to disembark, if its access point was suitably placed. I'm not going to go through each individual one though.
Marshal Torrick wrote:And as we all know, flying machines always sit statically in the air at a fixed hieght and certainly NEVER approach the ground for any reason. /sarcasm
People, it's a game.
Yeah, and the rules of said game also state that my guys can't turn their heads for the purposes of LOS and that if one model in a squad happens to have it's foot sticking out, the entire squad can be targeted and killed.
If troops sit statically and never react like you think they should then why should the valkyrie?
Frazzled wrote:I pulled out the trusty old ruler. You're right. You could do two ranks (maximum) assuming 1in bases.
Houston I think we have a problem with, all skimmers buahaha if we apply this rule.
And what I've pointed out is only actually true if the access point is actually just a singular, small "point" on the model. If it is say a 2 or 3" long access point, I could easily see deploying 10-15 models using the same practical application of the same formula. As it is, just the one model @ 1.5 inches was enough to get 8 more out in 1.58 inches (total 9).
That I disagree with to an extyent, just applying pen and paper. Using real world pen and paper (TM hah beat you to it GW!!!!) I'm getting a maximum of 1.5 on the same plane. Thats two rows. because I don't have the minis with me lets assume 2in=4 +2-4 including both sides. At 3in we're talking a full 10 man squad potentially, but live action would show the amount better and who knows may be closer to your theorum(sucky if you have a larger unit).
If we were sitting in a room together, I would be feeding you those delicious timmy's maple doughnuts while exploring individual models to see which do/do not confict with this rule. This hypothetical doesnt prove anything other than the standard 1.5" base COULD allow a skimmer to disembark, if its access point was suitably placed. I'm not going to go through each individual one though.
Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:Wow 46 replies in just a few hours and only about 5 of you managed to stay on topic.
Although it certainly was not the point of my post, you folks certainly have proven why this model is so controversial as to be pretty much unplayable IMHO. The guys I game with are probably a lot like most of you and the very points many of you make are the same things we discussed. And these are just not topics I want to spend my gaming night discussing (as I stated in the OP). So on the shelf they stay (now for those of you who have reading comprehension problems let me clearly state that there is no 'for sale' offer in that statement).
A big thank you to the folks who did stay on topic.
I am trying to watch a movie/ clean my room/ get to painting, I did not really read the thread.
I say D6 it.
XD
Or else the guy whose house it is makes the call before the game.
Heck you could even take a vote or change from game to game.
I think they are cool and will be getting some, although I do not know what they will be (between Inquisition and Veteran Guard). I am not buying five.
Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:Wow 46 replies in just a few hours and only about 5 of you managed to stay on topic.
Although it certainly was not the point of my post, you folks certainly have proven why this model is so controversial as to be pretty much unplayable IMHO. The guys I game with are probably a lot like most of you and the very points many of you make are the same things we discussed. And these are just not topics I want to spend my gaming night discussing (as I stated in the OP). So on the shelf they stay (now for those of you who have reading comprehension problems let me clearly state that there is no 'for sale' offer in that statement).
A big thank you to the folks who did stay on topic.
Just curious as to on the shelf forever or are you waiting for some kind of answer from GW, because it will not come. They will never answer this kind of question because they feel it does not deserve one. Again read Jervis articles, and see how they play the Valk in the Bat Reps, they do not belive there is any problem and have no respect for those who feel there is one, not just on this, but on this kind of issue where you are taking the BRB and using it to impose restrictions by strict reading of the rules.
They do not belive in strict reading of the rules.
Im not agreeing with them on that, I agree there is a problem, I just feel its easily resolved, you dont, thats cool.
GW on the other hand does not, so you will not get an answer from them.
This thread bound to be locked when I get up in the morning....
But for my input on topic, deploy as if it's on the board like a normal transport. Anyone who trys to gain an advantage by not letting you deploy because of RAW isn't worth playing.
I just read through this whole thread and I feel like half my brain cells are screaming for mercy and the other half are trying to give it to them. This thread is a load of crock. The only thing that made sense was Gary Oak.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Maybe you guys should turn it down and just enjoy the game, rather than getting too wound up over stuff...
Nice of you to condescend, why not add anything helpful while stopping by?
because LOL DRAMAZ, can only be responded to with more LOL DRAMAZ?
I mean it's "boycott the val!", and since the op won't go into detail, one can really only respond with "OMG HURTZ GW WHERE IT COUNTZ" or "Get over it and, make up house rules allready..."
Just curious as to on the shelf forever or are you waiting for some kind of answer from GW, because it will not come. They will never answer this kind of question because they feel it does not deserve one. Again read Jervis articles, and see how they play the Valk in the Bat Reps, they do not belive there is any problem and have no respect for those who feel there is one...
QFT. About 1/2 the "big" issues on YMDC fall under the heading "obvious if you are not a rules lawyer TFG. Only the biggest pain the arse would tell an IG player that troops are unable to disembark.
Quick we need a YMDC about baneblades not even being able to deploy from reserves due to their length to balance out this thread
RAW is awesome.. It allows you to ignore the game and instead argue about totally useless things that no one would argue about in a real game with real people
But in other news why can't people find a workaround and stop all this "omg it's too tall" bs. It's just looking for an excuse to tell someone else they can't use their new model.
But in other news why can't people find a workaround and stop all this "omg it's too tall" bs. It's just looking for an excuse to tell someone else they can't use their new model.
Well if GW actually gave a damn about their rules instead of just stringing random words together on restaurant napkins and hoping for the best there probably wouldn't have been any bs in the first place.
But in other news why can't people find a workaround and stop all this "omg it's too tall" bs. It's just looking for an excuse to tell someone else they can't use their new model.
Well if GW actually gave a damn about their rules instead of just stringing random words together on restaurant napkins and hoping for the best there probably wouldn't have been any bs in the first place.
IMO the only BS is players who want all of the benefits of a valkyries height with none of the limitations.
While half of me wants to beg for this thread to be locked for earlier deviations, the other half of me has to contribute something worthwhile.
I've heard it time and time again, both from forums and from local gamers who have had the opportunity to travel abroad: Warhammer is a totally different game in Europe than over here in the United States. To European players, the game is about having a good time, building and painting cool models, and playing what they want to field in order to have a fun game. In the US, we would analyze the rulebook with our tape measures to find some hidden meaning in the spacing between models, trying to find the secret precise distance at which we achieve minimum damage from a flame template while having the maximum chance of being completely missed by a scattered ordinance template. Forgive me for the generalization as I'm sure there are casual gamers in the US and rules lawyers abroad, but this sort of rules debate largely only occurs here in the states. Across the pond (you know, where the people design and test this stuff), nobody gave a second thought to whether or not you could get out of the thing in a normal fashion, and just said "Ooooh! Cool! I want IG now!", which is exactly what it was intended for, to sell models.
The Valkyrie was not intended to require its own ruleset or a new interpretation of the existing rules. It wasn't intended to be the harbinger of doom that cries out "I'm here, do you want me to roll my dice or just let you pick up your models?", nor was it put in the game as a point-sink that can't let out its troops or contest objectives while simultaneously hovering out of menta range. It looks cool. It's fluffy. It's the sort of thing any casual gamer would swoon over and make little 'dakka dakka, pew pew pew' noises in the back of their head as they placed it on its flight stand, majestically swooping over the battlefield. People are going to continue to buy them for this very reason. So any sort of semi-organized "boycott" of this model isn't going to get through to GW for months when going over their sales figures, if at all. If you really want some form of FAQ, call GW, email them, contact them by some means and let them know you have questions. And if enough people pester them, you'll get an answer that you'll slap yourself in the forehead over: Disembark via grav chute (as Nobody_Holme beat me to saying), or embark and/or disembark as though it were on the table in a two-dimensional system. I mean really, what else do you expect to hear? GW to say "Ooops, you're right, it's too high up, all these models are pretty but useless"? I'm not saying that the model as-is was a good idea to introduce from a gaming standpoint, but I am saying that if you aren't willing to let troops get in and out of the transport in the same fashion as any other skimmer, or if as someone stated earlier you would decline to play someone in a friendly game just because they planned to use this model, you're officially TFG, and I'd pass on playing you after that.
Malecus wrote: if you aren't willing to let troops get in and out of the transport in the same fashion as any other skimmer, or if as someone stated earlier you would decline to play someone in a friendly game just because they planned to use this model, you're officially TFG, and I'd pass on playing you after that.
The problem here is not that people are trying to use arcane rules manipulations to prevent Valkyrie players from being able to use their vehicles, the problem is that the very clear rules in the rulebook prevent valkyrie players from using their vehicles.
I fully support coming to an agreement with your opponents ahead of time as to how to to adjudicate this SNAFU.
However, if you want to force your opponent to use house rules because you think your airplane is super sweet... well in my mind that makes youTFG.
Gandair wrote:But in other news why can't people find a workaround and stop all this "omg it's too tall" bs.
There were several potential workarounds suggested in the Valk thread in YMDC.
Malecus wrote:...but I am saying that if you aren't willing to let troops get in and out of the transport in the same fashion as any other skimmer, ...
People keep bringing this idea up, so it's probably worth mentioning that it's treating the Valk as any other skimmer that causes the problem with disembarking and objectives.
The solution is one of the various house rules proposed elsewhere. And there's a few of them, which is why some discussion is called for, rather than just plonking it on the table and assuming that the house rule you have chosen is the way that everybody should play it, as so many seem to be suggesting.
willydstyle wrote:The problem here is not that people are trying to use arcane rules manipulations to prevent Valkyrie players from being able to use their vehicles, the problem is that the very clear rules in the rulebook prevent valkyrie players from using their vehicles.
I fully support coming to an agreement with your opponents ahead of time as to how to to adjudicate this SNAFU.
However, if you want to force your opponent to use house rules because you think your airplane is super sweet... well in my mind that makes youTFG.
We get it Willystyle, you're convinced as to the RAW regarding Valkyries. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not going to make it true. You also seem convinced that "players" (I'm not sure which players) seem to want all the benefits without the limitations. Sorry to sound stupid, but what possible advantages are there to the flight stand? At best you're dealing with range for melta weapons and the like, but that's a compromise nearly all of us horrible cheaters that want to use our transports as, you know, transports are willing to accept.
By nearly all definitions, a person that wants to hold people to their own, minority, view, regardless of validity, in a social situation is closer to TFG. You're the guy that reports uniform violations of co-workers, won't go to the strip club for bachelor parties, and is generally a turd in the punch bowl. I'm not saying you're not principled, but you want to hold people to the RAW, not because it's fun, or good for the game, or makes the hobby better, but because you think it's important when most people don't. The guy that wants to play with his models the way everybody seems to agree they should be played, the way we all know GW will eventually FAQ it, the way every tournament worth anything is going to rule... that guy is TFG? Really? Because he's willing to overlook a single glitch in the rules? I don't know man, you may be closer to correct on the RAW regarding Valks, but I'd argue that you're dead wrong regarding the status of TFG in this situation.
@ Insaniak: You asked how people resolved things. It depends if it's in a game or not. In a game, we spend a few minutes to look it up, and then by I suppose local custom the superior player demures, plays as if the lesser player was correct (if equal, the actice player may not take the contested action). Afterwards, we consult the INAT, read up here, or simply rule based on what makes sense. For the Valk, we simply assumed that valk can land to disembark/embark. we have two basic principles for rules disputes: 1) A player that relied, in good faith, on a rule will be allowed to either play as he though (if part of army construction) or can take a move back (if a play mistake). 2) A rules mistake or ruling should not decide a game.
We've rarely had issues with this. Valks are a bit of a new breed, as this might be the first real RAW debate that would neuter a top notch unit, that I can recall (aside from the infamous terminator debate, which seemed to just be ignored by all involved).
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that I think that players should be able to disembark/embark from a valkyrie, and also that players should be aware of, and decide how to play the rules for the valkyrie.
I've stated my opinion on how it should be played multiple times, and I don't think I should have to add the same disclaimer to every post I make regarding how the rules interact with the vehicle.
willydstyle wrote:And you seem to be ignoring the fact that I think that players should be able to disembark/embark from a valkyrie, and also that players should be aware of, and decide how to play the rules for the valkyrie.
I've stated my opinion on how it should be played multiple times, and I don't think I should have to add the same disclaimer to every post I make regarding how the rules interact with the vehicle.
Sorry for not noticing that, but after about 30 variations of reading you re-state your view of RAW, it's hard to remember you posting anything else.
We get it Willystyle, you're convinced as to the RAW regarding Valkyries.
Perhaps he's convinced because hes' right. Going around calling TFG every time someone cites the rules is a bit ridiculous, don't you think, Polonius?
You're not supposed to reply, I'm the minority view: the lone voice calling for change, spitting in the face of public opinion... I'm a rebel Dotti, a loner.
You definitely will continue to be a loner if you keep this act up. Just listen to the argument, and come up with your own.
Personally I don't think Valkryies were DESIGNED to be transports that could pick up models and drive them around like a chimera. It was designed to dramatically drop your troops right on top of the enemy in a risky (but cool) manner, and them blow the crap out of them.
Play them as they should be played. Suicidally dangerous transports. Fit only for the Gung Ho, insane or ballsy...
I agree that the grav-chute deployment is cool but if that's the only way passengers could disembark then why can they only do it when moving flat-out?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Yeah, your avatar says it all. But according to the rules it's a skimmer isn't it? Is there are passage that mentions skimmers and dis/embarking?
The first page of This Thread has most of the salient rules.
I know there are plenty of rules for transports but does it actually mention skimmer transports specifically?
Anyway, I think the Valkryies models are just TOO awesome. The very idea of having not a mechanised army but an AIRBORNE army make me drool. Its awesome enough to ignore the lack of rules and possibly the lack of chance in winning.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I know there are plenty of rules for transports but does it actually mention skimmer transports specifically?
Anyway, I think the Valkryies models are just TOO awesome. The very idea of having not a mechanised army but an AIRBORNE army make me drool. Its awesome enough to ignore the lack of rules and possibly the lack of chance in winning.
Most skimmer transports are close enough to the table that you can disembark from then while staying well within the normal rules for transports.
I think it was intended to be able to disembark from valkyries... I just think it's stupid that there aren't any rules to actually be able to.
willydstyle wrote:
I think it was intended to be able to disembark from valkyries... I just think it's stupid that there aren't any rules to actually be able to.
Suggestion : gravchute. When moving flat out, it's dangerous, hence the special rule. When not moving flat out, it drops troopers off safely under the Valk. Use the base for measuring.
willydstyle wrote:
I think it was intended to be able to disembark from valkyries... I just think it's stupid that there aren't any rules to actually be able to.
Suggestion : gravchute. When moving flat out, it's dangerous, hence the special rule. When not moving flat out, it drops troopers off safely under the Valk. Use the base for measuring.
That's a reasonable workaround, but it's not supported by the rules, so what do you do when your opponent wants to play closer to the rulebook?
willydstyle wrote:That's a reasonable workaround, but it's not supported by the rules, so what do you do when your opponent wants to play closer to the rulebook?
Headshot?
If an opponent doesn't want to accept, he's more than welcome to suggest another workaround. If we can't come up with something mutually agreeable, I'm usually quite willing to flip a coin to see which interpretation we'll be using.
Simply saying "they can't disembark" would mean no game, because he will most likely not be an enjoyable opponent.
The Valk is a transport. It's fairly obvious there has to be some way to exit the vehicle. Even if GW did drop the ball somewhat in the elaboration of exactly how to go about it.
moonfire wrote:if they wanna play like that i' will be the last time that I play against them.
and btw it's game ment for fun not like the American way (didn't knew that it was that bad overthere)
I have tons of fun when I play. I joke and laugh, and have a good time. I also play by the rules, but in cases where things seem to be Intended differently than Written, I'm quite amenable to coming to a working rule through collaboration.
That being said, I play as close to the RAW as possible, because it leads to less arguments, which leads to more fun.
willydstyle wrote:Because judgments based on a few sentences posted on a public, international forum are fun...
Not as much fun as actually being able to use your Valkyries
Like I said before, with 9 out of 10 opponents you'll reach a mutually agreeable system. When playing in a store you could always ask the store owner to make the call. If that doesn't work, flip a coin.
If that doesn't fly and the opponent is still adamant it should be his way? Then he really isn't worth my time.
Please note I'd be perfectly happy to use this way to decide rules questions concerning my opponent's army as well.
willydstyle wrote:Because judgments based on a few sentences posted on a public, international forum are fun...
Not as much fun as actually being able to use your Valkyries
Like I said before, with 9 out of 10 opponents you'll reach a mutually agreeable system. When playing in a store you could always ask the store owner to make the call. If that doesn't work, flip a coin.
If that doesn't fly and the opponent is still adamant it should be his way? Then he really isn't worth my time.
Please note I'd be perfectly happy to use this way to decide rules questions concerning my opponent's army as well.
But, what you're saying basically (aside from the coin flip comment) is that unless your can convince your opponent to agree with you, you won't play. Even if your opponent disagrees with you, his point of view is just as valid as your own, why should he be the one to "give in" if he's the one that actually has the rules on his side?
I'm more than willing to accept an opponent's take on things. Like I've said several times before, it has to be possible to reach a mutually agreeable solution.
In the specific case of the Valkyrie, yes, I will maintain that it is a transport and thus has some way of deploying the embarked troops. How this will be represented in the game is something I'm willing to be quite flexible about.
If I think the opponent will be worth my while, I'd even flip a coin to decide whether or not troops can disembark from the Valk if nothing else works.
Whenever I've had a rules dispute we couldn't settle on, we always resolved it with a dice roll. I have to say I used to play against a limited number of opponents who I knew quite well, so that might have helped as well.
I can't believe I got into this discussion without even owning a Valkyrie yet...
Just as well the one that I do have will never be fielded outside of an apocalypse game (and then only with certain players - all of whom are over 21 and free to enjoy a bevvy or three during the game).
What makes so many people feel that you are being TFG is your adamant assertion that YOUR interpretation of the RAW is the only possible one in a case where everything we are doing is trying to determine how to deal with a stand that has never been mentioned in the rules, ever. It is not a normal skimmer stand, so applying the rules that govern those stands as if there is no difference is at best a solid interpretation, but not the only one.
Since no tournament including the official GWGT and Ard Boyz has EVER mandated the kind of 3D movement rules that would be required to justify the assertion that deployment is done using the Z axis, just repeating that
"I AM RIGHT!!!" Instead of " I am convinced of my opinion" make you look like a DB.
I am convinced of my opinion, but im not so arrogant as to assume that my interpretation of a poorly written ruleset is the only possible one.
Newsflash: bullying someone into playing by your house rule is *also* being a jerk.
I'm glad that someone else understands what I'm trying to say.
You seem to be insisting that folks who use a house rule, to cover an problem with the RAW (a) are "bullying" people into using them, and (b) are jerks if they won't play because the argument can't be settled without making the game unfun..
Some folks happen to think that house rules can be agreeded upon, without (a) or (b)
Based on the way the Valk is modeled, with integral landing gear, I'm going to suggest that, when Embarking / Disembarking, the model simply be taken off it's base and placed on the board.
Interestingly, based on the pictures and such, this appears to be how GW deals with the situation as well...
Certainly not a terrible house rule, and if your opponents agree its coolbeans. But be aware that taking a skimmer off its base is explicitly prohibited if its not destroyed.
Is this issue really any different than all the other issues in the past 20+ years that GW has been around? They tend to make tournament games with loopholes and imbalances, yet pretend there are none. After 20+ years of this people still buy their games and expect balance to suddenly happen?
Consumer rule #1: Educate yourself to a product before buying. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you DO buy it, then you are supporting it.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Can't a few house rules patch up problems until a FAQ appears?
Yes, very easily, as has been shown by the Big Waagh Indy GT, The intended updates to the INATFAQ, and what I am told will be the ruling for Ard Boyz all of which are just variations on the example shown in the book itself. ( i.e. just use 2d measurment for deployment, or consider the model to be on the table for the purposes of measurements.)
I say again that this is a manufactured controversey.
I really Craig's point in the most recent D6G was a good one when he dismissed the entire controversy by saying, "this would only come up for people trying to read for advantage."
Some people dont like the Valkyrie, so they are lobbying to cripple the model by imposing an intepretation of the rules that has never been used for any other model. (Exept those two of you out there that claim to actually measure out parabolic arcs for all thier skimmers and jump troops- something I have never seen once in 15 years of miniature wargaming, including tournaments in 12 states, and two countries)
Commissar Molotov wrote:Yeah, I'm sure that's how we'll play it at our FLGS - just take it off the stand and "land" it when you wanna disembark.
Even in tourneys, nobody's gonna get their panties in a wad over it, I'm sure. We're very fortunate not to have TFG at our local FLGS.
I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.
Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.
Commissar Molotov wrote:Yeah, I'm sure that's how we'll play it at our FLGS - just take it off the stand and "land" it when you wanna disembark.
Even in tourneys, nobody's gonna get their panties in a wad over it, I'm sure. We're very fortunate not to have TFG at our local FLGS.
I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.
Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.
Why cant you melta it? Mine take melta shots all the time. 5" off the ground, but 8x11 means that it is VERY EASY to get in melta range of these things. The only advantage to the height of the stand is for LOS but that is an extremely two edged sword and is more of a disadvantage than an advantage when you have an AV12 vehicle that can not hide or get cover EVER.
Most people use top down measurement anyway ( again the way its shown in the book ) for those people this is simply never an issue. Thats how I measure from my valks, and how I expect my opponents to measure to me. And the rulling so far has been that its all or nothing. All measurements are done using the model as if it were on the table, but LOS is true so I never get cover, ever and that is a major disadvantage. Having a transport be able to use its transport ability like any other transport ( exacly as GW has shown it is to be used) is not an "unfair advantage".
I have played almost 40 games with them using the Big Waag rulings and there has never been any problem, nor have my oppoents ever felt they were being used unfairly. Valkyries get popped all the time, by meltas, at short range. Im sorry but this really is not an issue unless you make it one.
avantgarde wrote:I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.
Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.
As I'm going to play mine, at the end of any given movement phase, a Valk is either down on the ground (0") to embark / disembark, or else up in the air (5") for shooting / being shot at. That seems simple enough, and should fit with the basic intent of things.
I think that'll look good and play fine. I'm not sure there's any obvious advantage or disadvantage to this kind of approach in the kind of casual play that I participate in.
^Impossible that makes too much sense so doesn't fit into 40k.
What about exploding it while it's 5" in the air with guys inside.
Guys die cause it's a freaking exploding aircraft in mid-air and there's no where to place or they miraculously escape by jumping out or survive and climb out of the crater.
There is nothing unclear about that in the rules. I can understand the need to at least clarify about disembarkation and such but exploded valk is treated no differently than an exploded rhino unless there is a rule that says so.
I dont know why I keep getting drawn back by this thread. All the points have already been resolved for every place I have played or will ever play. but Its like a black hole that keeps pulling me back in.
Most people use top down measurement anyway ( again the way its shown in the book ) for those people this is simply never an issue. Thats how I measure from my valks, and how I expect my opponents to measure to me. And the rulling so far has been that its all or nothing. All measurements are done using the model as if it were on the table, but LOS is true so I never get cover, ever and that is a major disadvantage.
Most people don't play like that here, probably because it's wrong. The rulebook is very explicit when they say you measure to the hull of the vehicle. It doesn't say "measure to where the vehicle's hull would be if it were somewhere else." You measure from A to B, simple as that.
And don't pretend being elevated is a major disadvantage. You conveniently leave out the fact that virtually everything YOU are shooting at will have an equally difficult time getting a cover save due to the angle at which you are firing (and which further validates the fact that 40k is played in three dimensions).
Most people use top down measurement anyway ( again the way its shown in the book ) for those people this is simply never an issue. Thats how I measure from my valks, and how I expect my opponents to measure to me. And the rulling so far has been that its all or nothing. All measurements are done using the model as if it were on the table, but LOS is true so I never get cover, ever and that is a major disadvantage.
Most people don't play like that here, probably because it's wrong. The rulebook is very explicit when they say you measure to the hull of the vehicle. It doesn't say "measure to where the vehicle's hull would be if it were somewhere else." You measure from A to B, simple as that.
And don't pretend being elevated is a major disadvantage. You conveniently leave out the fact that virtually everything YOU are shooting at will have an equally difficult time getting a cover save due to the angle at which you are firing (and which further validates the fact that 40k is played in three dimensions).
Whereas actually playing the game has shown its no problem at all getting into melta range. As with everything else you bring up, people actually playing the game seem to have no trouble with these issues.
And being elevated (in practice rather than theroy) had not really changed much in the way of cover saves for my opponents vehicles, but it has made the fact that I NEVER get one pretty much assured.
You obviously have a grudge against the valkyrie and are on a campaign to screw people who play it, fine, but you already lost as the vast consneus is that it will be either played with 2d measurement or ( the way GW played it in the batreps ) by considering it to be grounded for purposes of measurement.
And no one has ever said its a 2d game, only that 2d measurement is the standard. Maybe you play in the one shop that measures parabolic arcs for thier jump troops but I have never seen that at any GWGT - EVER and sorry but I will take thier rulings over yours there Danny.
I've never played with 2D measurement either, and most players I've seen measure 3D a lot without even thinking about it.
When most players I've seen are firing from an elevated position in ruins, if the shots are close to max range, they angle the tape measure to check to see if it touches the enemies' bases, because that's what the rulebook tells us to do.
Yes because that is the exception specifically mentioned in the rule book for ruins which have specific special rules so much so they have thier own seperate section of the book.
Yes you can infer that it should used elsewhere but it is not implicit. In every other example everywhere else in the book it makes no reference to 3d measurement.
And even so that is not the issue im talking about. 3d measurment for shooting makes sense, and thats how I play it too for the most part. But 3d measuremnt for skimmer and jump troop movement is not something I have ever seen.
I have checked with my friends from overseas, many have attended the GWGT for over a decade, they have never seen it either so this is not just my isolated ( GT Baltimore, GT Philly, GT Vegas, Adepticon, GT LA, Dozens of RT in New York, Philadelphia, New Jersey, Baltimore, San Diego, Los Angeles , Virginia, Delaware, New Hampshire, Ontario Canada ) expereince.
Never have I seen this 3d paraboloc movement that you claim is the "only way to play"
And if I am starting to get various peoples claims confused I apologize since this same conversation has now traveled over a couple threads.
RustyKnight wrote:First off, Gwar! is kinda proof that all European gamers are not perfect, RaW ignoring angels.
I'm fine letting you disembark from the base, as long as I can Melta the base. Win-win!
I prefer disembarking from the rear of the base, but measuring to the hull for everything else. It does nerf meltaguns a bit, but I think it will lead to less "WTF" situations.
RustyKnight wrote:First off, Gwar! is kinda proof that all European gamers are not perfect, RaW ignoring angels.
I'm fine letting you disembark from the base, as long as I can Melta the base. Win-win!
In practice its actually a disadvantage to melta to the base since the nose hangs so far out from the base you are better off measuring to the hull for your melta shot. ( this includes the wings to me but thats a whole nother language parsing discussion )I let my opponents do either but the store I played at for my most recent tourney went with the "everything from the base" ruling.
And why the rear of the base? since the model has three acess points? Not that it makes enough of a difference to care about since the base is so much smaller than the model, just wondering why.
bigtmac68 wrote:I say again that this is a manufactured controversey.
Not really, since there are rules issues with the vehicle, as is evident from these threads. It won't be a huge deal in practice, since most players will certainly be happy to adopt some sort of house rules to cover it... but it is an issue, and one worth making as much noise about as possible in the (probably vain) hope that GW will do something about it.
Then again, people kept asking about the 2-model IG heavy bases last edition, and when GW finally FAQ'd it, they made completely the wrong call, so hey, maybe making noise isn't the best idea after all...
I really Craig's point in the most recent D6G was a good one when he dismissed the entire controversy by saying, "this would only come up for people trying to read for advantage."
I couldn't disagree more.
It came up because people noticed that the vehicle didn't really work within the established rules of the game. The fact that people are happy to house rule it, or pretend that there aren't actually any rules issues, doesn't change that.
Speaking for myself, I don't have a Valkyrie, and I don't know anybody else who does... so I'm at a loss as to what sort of advantage I'm supposed to be getting by pointing out how the rules don't work for it.
Some people dont like the Valkyrie, so they are lobbying to cripple the model by imposing an intepretation of the rules that has never been used for any other model. (Exept those two of you out there that claim to actually measure out parabolic arcs for all thier skimmers and jump troops- something I have never seen once in 15 years of miniature wargaming, including tournaments in 12 states, and two countries)
Nobody is lobbying to 'cripple' the model. Bringing rules issues to peoples' attention is the best way to reduce disagreements at the table. Pretty much everybody so far has said that they would be happy to use various house rule fixes to make the model work.
And for what it's worth, I don't recall anybody saying that they actually measure parabolic arcs for jump troops or skimmers... Some of us have said we measure in 3D (ie: measure directly from the first point to the second point as it says to do in the rulebook, which means that the tape is going to be angled if those points are at different heights), and that measurement for movement should follow the models's actual path.
bigtmac68 wrote:Yes you can infer that it should used elsewhere but it is not implicit. In every other example everywhere else in the book it makes no reference to 3d measurement.
Because it doesn't need to. 'Measure to the model's base' means 'measure to the model's base'
Not 'measure to a point in line with the model's base'... that's something completely different.
It doesn't need to state that you measure in 3D any more than it needs to say that you roll a die by picking it up, shaking it a little, and then dropping it on the table so that it rolls.
If you're not measuring to the actual, physical model's base, then you're not measuring to the model's base. You're measuring something else.
Your points are all well taken, and its not folks like you that have gotten me railed up. I also agree that there are plenty of problems but the idea that some folks have presented that until there is a faq from gw that the model is unuseable is what has gotten me going perhaps to much.
Yes the rules suck, and there are questions, plenty of them. They do require an agreement on how to handle them and most people seem to have no problem with that, they are not the people Im talking to.
Its those who insist that the valk should not be allowed to disembark, still, that im talking to.
which is of course a mistake since they are not people who are willing to listen anyway.
I just need to stay out of these damn valk threads.
You obviously have a grudge against the valkyrie and are on a campaign to screw people who play it, fine, but you already lost as the vast consneus is that it will be either played with 2d measurement or ( the way GW played it in the batreps ) by considering it to be grounded for purposes of measurement.
Yeah, I have such a grudge against it that I went out and bought three of them for my new IG army. So much for that assumption.
In a previous thread I stated that I would be fine with establishing a house rule as long as it is applied consistently, however it still boggles my mind that people can still maintain that position that there is no problem with this model and the rules whatsoever. The model is problematic for the reasons stated and GW should address it, and the best way to expedite that is to be vocal about it.
And no one has ever said its a 2d game, only that 2d measurement is the standard.
Incorrect. 2D measurement being the standard is your own invention. The rules tell us to measure from A to B. Never at any time do they say that these measurements are restricted to the horizontal plane. Just because the examples adopt a top-down perspective (presumably for diagramming simplicity) doesn't mean that the actual rules themselves are irrelevant.
Maybe you play in the one shop that measures parabolic arcs for thier jump troops but I have never seen that at any GWGT - EVER and sorry but I will take thier rulings over yours there Danny.
I friend of mine asked us about converting the inside of the his Valkryie so that he could unfurl rappeling lines down the side.
It was basically just to look cool, but could it have an impact on the game? Does the codex mention anything about rappeling lines?
Best thing would by to have it mounted on a telescoping rod which would allow you to choose the height at the end of each turn. I've seen gamers who play aerial combat games do this.
It's all very well being high up and out of melta range, but you're going to be a magnet for half the long range weapons on the table.
Ok, so it seems pretty clear from many of your inputs that we will be having snow ball fights in hell before GW gets around to clearing this up and taking their writing seriously. With that said perhaps INATFAQ should be the standard that I advocate in my circle.
I found INATFAQ 2.2 (19 Mar 09). But it seems to not address these matters. Is there a more recent INATFAQ? If so can someone please post a link?
avantgarde wrote:I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.
Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.
As I'm going to play mine, at the end of any given movement phase, a Valk is either down on the ground (0") to embark / disembark, or else up in the air (5") for shooting / being shot at. That seems simple enough, and should fit with the basic intent of things.
I think that'll look good and play fine. I'm not sure there's any obvious advantage or disadvantage to this kind of approach in the kind of casual play that I participate in.
But then, I'm past the whole tournament scene.
You're kidding, right? You're giving yourself 5" of free movement if you don't feel like getting shot at. That is plainly exploiting the rules.
I say measure everything from the hull. If you want to measure embarking/disembarking from the hull on the ground, fine, but shooting has to be measured there too.
Deciding which to use on a turn by turn basis is ridiculous. Then, you get the convenience of embarking troops normally and the safety from shooting once they're in the air.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I friend of mine asked us about converting the inside of the his Valkryie so that he could unfurl rappeling lines down the side.
It was basically just to look cool, but could it have an impact on the game? Does the codex mention anything about rappeling lines?
There's a rule for dropping troops out of the back while moving flat-out. It comes standard with the Valkryie, so any ropes would be purely cosmetic.
JohnHwangDD wrote:As I'm going to play mine, at the end of any given movement phase, a Valk is either down on the ground (0") to embark / disembark, or else up in the air (5") for shooting / being shot at.
You're kidding, right?
You're giving yourself 5" of free movement if you don't feel like getting shot at.
I say measure everything from the hull. If you want to measure embarking/disembarking from the hull on the ground, fine, but shooting has to be measured there too.
Deciding which to use on a turn by turn basis is ridiculous. Then, you get the convenience of embarking troops normally and the safety from shooting once they're in the air.
Nope.
How am I getting 5" of free movement?
If the Valk is embarking / disembarking, then it's on the ground, and everything measures to/from the Valk on the ground. Otherwise, it's up in the air and everything measure to/from the Valk on the stand.
I hardly see what's ridiculous about it. It lands to embark/disembark. Otherwise, it flies. And what "safety" are you imagining? In the air, there's no cover saves.
Huh? A skimmer can move up to 12" before the models disembark. If the total (diagonal, since that's how people want to count things) movement is up to 12", including landing, then there shouldn't be any problem with moving before disembarking.
The Grav Chute allows the Valk to move 12-24" and disembark anywhere along the path, up to 24" away, rather than up to 12" away.
As for the Meltas, it's a AV12 Skimmer. If it didn't move Flat Out, then, there's no cover save, so the extra d6 hardly matters.
Well I stand corrected. But any further than 12" means the valkryie should not land (talking common sense, not RAW).
And it is not that hard to fail to pen an AV12 on D6, it is a 4+ after all. 50/50
Ive tried to tell people just get two things to make it legal.
1) A popsicle stick
2) Small Piece of Scotch Tape
If someone has an issue with you embarking/disembarking your troops, then simply lower the ramp and tape the popsicle stick to the ramp so it touches the ground.
This "conversion" makes it legal to embark/disembark since there is a wooden plank touching the ground.
Now if they want to play it common sense you dont have to do popsicle stick, its an easy solution.
hmmm, interesting, but I prefer the whole landing scenario. (Just becuase it looks a bit cooler than a popsicle stick).
Anyway, it could be the centre of your mission. You have to get someone to board a valkryie and escape to safety. (Didn't they do that in some battle report IG vs Nids?)
broxus wrote:Ive tried to tell people just get two things to make it legal.
1) A popsicle stick
2) Small Piece of Scotch Tape
If someone has an issue with you embarking/disembarking your troops, then simply lower the ramp and tape the popsicle stick to the ramp so it touches the ground.
This "conversion" makes it legal to embark/disembark since there is a wooden plank touching the ground.
Now if they want to play it common sense you dont have to do popsicle stick, its an easy solution.
I'm going to build all my tanks to be triangles so they have no rear arcs.
I think it's clear that Danny Internets is saying that D6+8 penetration is only like a 50% chance to glance/pen, while 2D6+8 raises that a lot, making it quite unlikely for it to NOT penetrate AV12, as compared to doing nothing...
JohnHwangDD wrote:Huh? A skimmer can move up to 12" before the models disembark. If the total (diagonal, since that's how people want to count things) movement is up to 12", including landing, then there shouldn't be any problem with moving before disembarking.
The Grav Chute allows the Valk to move 12-24" and disembark anywhere along the path, up to 24" away, rather than up to 12" away.
As for the Meltas, it's a AV12 Skimmer. If it didn't move Flat Out, then, there's no cover save, so the extra d6 hardly matters.
I swear you don't play the same game as the rest of us.
I get what you're saying JohnHwangDD, but I think you spoke too soon in saying an extra D6 doesn't matter.
The only thing that makes the Monolith practically indestructible is that you can't use D6.
Even a land-raider can easily be peeled open with a melta.
Conclusion: 12" should be the maximum movement before landing. And you should make it clear to your opponent that you believe you can land.
The Monolith is AV14, not AV12. There's a big difference there. - AV14, you need S8+2d6 to reliably pen - AV12, you have good chances to glance or pen even with basic S8 - and Valk is Skimmer, so dies to Immobilized
If you were planning on a single Melta to drop a Valk, that is just foolishness depending on luck. The BS of the shooter will matter more than the extra d6. If you have a proper multiple-Melta unit that would reliably crack AV14, then you won't need the extra d6 against an AV12 Skimmer out of cover / not moving fast.
JohnHwangDD wrote:The Monolith is AV14, not AV12. There's a big difference there.
- AV14, you need S8+2d6 to reliably pen
- AV12, you have good chances to glance or pen even with basic S8
- and Valk is Skimmer, so dies to Immobilized
If you were planning on a single Melta to drop a Valk, that is just foolishness depending on luck. The BS of the shooter will matter more than the extra d6. If you have a proper multiple-Melta unit that would reliably crack AV14, then you won't need the extra d6 against an AV12 Skimmer out of cover / not moving fast.
Skimmers only die to immobilized if they moved flat out in the previous movement phase.
I'm sorry, when did regular 40k remove the possibility for Skimmers to die to Immoblized entirely?
And when was it added for Monoliths and other AV14 vehicles?
Oh wait, the Valk, being a Skimmer, actually does have a extra vulnerability not present on AV14 things like the Monolith / Land Raider / Leman Russ...
but with Strength 8 againts AV12 it is still a 50/50 chance of failing to pen completly. An extra D6 would work wonders. I'm just saying that 2D6 is always better than 1D6.
I'm sorry, when did regular 40k remove the possibility for Skimmers to die to Immoblized entirely?
Willydstyle already pointed out that skimmers only die to immobilization results when moving flat out (12-24"). Due to the amount of weapons present on Valkyries and Vendettas, these vehicles will rarely be moving so fast, unless suffering from a Vehicle Shaken result.
So, no, these skimmers are generally not any more vulnerable than the other vehicles you mentioned.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm sorry, when did regular 40k remove the possibility for Skimmers to die to Immoblized entirely?
And when was it added for Monoliths and other AV14 vehicles?
Oh wait, the Valk, being a Skimmer, actually does have a extra vulnerability not present on AV14 things like the Monolith / Land Raider / Leman Russ...
Silly you.
The Valkyrie, being a skimmer, also gains a cover save when it moves flat out, making it more durable than the disadvantage on the damage table hinders its durability. In fact, a flat-out skimmer is probably about as durable against half-range melta as an AV 14 vehicle... but does not cost as many points. When you then factor in the fact that the Valkyrie is much more likely to be outside of the half-range mark due to its height, and you have a vehicle that is more durable, for cheaper, and is faster.
I would really like to see a well organized GW strike. Get as many people to stop buying and stop playing at any GW stores until the FAQ's and Codex issues are addressed.
You're playing with 10" tall LoS obscuring terrain?
That extra d6 for meltas literally turns you from killing a tank with 4 melta hits to killing a tank with 2 melta hits on average. I'd say that is a BIG deal.
I am not supporting a boycott of Valkyreez. They make for great looted fighta-bommas!
If you run into a crybabee, drill a hole in the supplied base and the bottom of the Valkyrie - then use a standard GW skimmer rod to mount it on the base. Problem Solved™
We play with 5" tall obscuring terrain - most buildings are that high, and all you need is 50% coverage to get Hull Down.
But then, the Monolith doesn't really need cover, BECAUSE MELTAS NEVER GET THE EXTRA D6 AGAINST LIVING METAL, so they are categorically superior to AV12 Valk survivability in every situation.
Getting back to the only other AV14 vehicles, Russes & Land Raiders, they should be in cover or popping smoke if they're expecting serious firepower back.
Math-wise, S8+2d6 vs AV14 in cover or smoke (which should be the default for any tank) is about the same as S8+d6 vs AV12 not moving fast. Anything beside the Melta, and that skimmer drops a lot easier. Certainly, being immune to S6 and S7 weapons, and unpenetrable by anything S8 has benefits.
I don't know about you, but my Valkyrie flight stands that came with my Valks (read: supplised by GW) are as tall as those buildings, so I most likely won't be hiding 50% of the model itself behind them.
The key point to take away here is that thanks to our dear friend trigonometry, you can be covered by something shorter than you. Run a war machine heavy WHFB list if you need a refresher course in trig.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What about those of us who don't play at GW stores today?
If we're already playing at home, and buying on discount, then there isn't much less we can give GW.
Then you'll be fine sitting back and adding online support for the cause. If we could get a good turn out to not shop direct from GW, they would notice.
I've heard it time and time again, both from forums and from local gamers who have had the opportunity to travel abroad: Warhammer is a totally different game in Europe than over here in the United States. To European players, the game is about having a good time, building and painting cool models, and playing what they want to field in order to have a fun game. In the US, we would analyze the rulebook with our tape measures to find some hidden meaning in the spacing between models, trying to find the secret precise distance at which we achieve minimum damage from a flame template while having the maximum chance of being completely missed by a scattered ordinance template. Forgive me for the generalization as I'm sure there are casual gamers in the US and rules lawyers abroad, but this sort of rules debate largely only occurs here in the states. Across the pond (you know, where the people design and test this stuff), nobody gave a second thought to whether or not you could get out of the thing in a normal fashion, and just said "Ooooh! Cool! I want 
