I've got a tournament coming up, and having seen lots of chat about the new Valkryie, but no consolidated notes on the problems arising from using them, I was wondering if someone could clue me in? I've read everything from "Stop buying valkryies" to threads about 5" being broken, but I'm not sure why....

Could someone tell me what's going on with them, and if I run into them in the tournament what I should be looking for / talking to my opponent about? Thanks!

There was a thread a couple of days ago that included pretty much all of the issues, but in a nutshell:

Because you ignore the flight base on skimmers for measurement purposes and instead measure range to and from the hull, the tall flight stem on the Valk means that it is impossible to embark or dismbark from it unless you're sitting beside a tall piece of terrain that troops can stand on, and the Valk will generally not be able to contest ground level objectives.


Various house rules have been suggested to cover this, including:
1 - Measure all distances horizontally, ignoring vertical displacement

2 - Measure to and from the base instead of the hull

3 - Count the Valkyrie as being at a set (lower) height more in line with the older style flight bases

4 - Assume that the Valkyrie can land for dis/embarking and/or taking objectives.

5 - Allow models to disembark, staying as close as possible to the base or the outline of the hull

6 - Allow models to dis/embark from the base, but don't allow it to contest ground level objectives

7 - Convert the Valkyrie so that it is on a shorter flight stem/is angled backwards so the rear hatch is closer to the ground/is sitting on the ground without a flight base/some other creative way of getting it closer to the ground.


I think that's covered them all. Anyone else should feel free to chime in with any that I missed.

You missed one:
0 - Play by the actual rules.

Gwar! wrote:You missed one:
0 - Play by the actual rules.

That's not a house rule...

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You missed one:
0 - Play by the actual rules.

That's not a house rule...

According to some it is because page 2 means that the rulebook never applies.

But yeah, it's not a house rule, but ya should have listed it as, ya know, how you should play it

er... I listed the actual rules... and then I listed some house rules that have been suggested.

Sorry, didn't feel it was necessary to point out that people could just use the actual rules. Nor is it really necessary to carry on a five page discussion on whether or not I should have done so. Go have some more rum.

insaniak wrote:Go have some more rum.

I shall then! And Ginger Snaps. And Rice pudding.

But anyway, Just to make my feelings clear:
USE THE DAMN RULES.

I'll go away now.

Where using the rules does what? Doesn't let troops disembark?

My Tau drones have had their bases shaved down, because they break from time to time when they fall, and I have to re-drill the hole in the drone, then shave the base down to fit in the hole before regluing. As such, I have drones of different heights.

Cutting down the Valkryie base would fix all this I presume? Are there other contentions with it as a vehicle, or just its height?

Dashofpepper wrote:Where using the rules does what? Doesn't let troops disembark?

My Tau drones have had their bases shaved down, because they break from time to time when they fall, and I have to re-drill the hole in the drone, then shave the base down to fit in the hole before regluing. As such, I have drones of different heights.

Cutting down the Valkryie base would fix all this I presume? Are there other contentions with it as a vehicle, or just its height?

There's it's hight, do the wings count as hull, can it contest objectives (nevermind capture them) etc etc

Dashofpepper wrote:Where using the rules does what? Doesn't let troops disembark?

insaniak wrote:... it is impossible to embark or dismbark from it unless you're sitting beside a tall piece of terrain that troops can stand on, and the Valk will generally not be able to contest ground level objectives.

Cutting down the Valkryie base would fix all this I presume?

Assuming that your opponent has no objection to the Valk being on a base that is different to what it came with, sure.

insaniak wrote:Assuming that your opponent has no objection to the Valk being on a base that is different to what it came with, sure.

Rabble rabble THATS AGAINST THE RULES rabble rabble rabble....

Insaniak: SCREW THE RULES I HAVE MONEY!

OP, for your upcoming tournie your only option is to email the TO's ASAP and get a ruling from them.

Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.

You know who you are.

I would also think that it's unlikey a TO won't offer some method of disembarking.

The more interesting question is objective holding/contesting.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.

You know who you are.

Only TFG forces his opponents to play with made-up rules.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.

The tournie is still going to need a ruling on just how the passengers disembark from it...

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.

You know who you are.

Cheese Elemental, meet Grav Chute Insertion.
Grav Chute Insertion, meet Cheese Elemental.

Dont bother asking us on a situation on this. rather consult the TO before hand on the tournies position on Valkaries. Ultimately this is a RaW forum, and as such not the best place to ask such a question as w'ell probably grudgingly come to the conclusion that the only way out of Valks is to grav shoot out.

It does matter AT ALL what anyone on here says to do in terms of how to play it if you're bringing them to a tournament. The word that matters is that of the TO and you need to ask him prior to the tournament how he intends to rule it. So save yourself the trouble of this thread, which is going to turn silly because the word Valkyrie was mentioned, and go ask your TO how he will rule the issues with the valkyrie. His interpritation and decision making regarding the Valkyrie will be the only thing that matters for the tournament so you should seek to prepare for the way he demands that they be played at his tournament.

To the OP, dont worry about it trust me they will allow you to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport for embarking and disembarking.

If they have an issue with it get a popsicle and a piece of tape. Right before the game use the small piece of tape and tape it onto the ramp so it touchs the ground like a plank. This is a simple fast conversion that makes it perfectly legal.

Also, if you want to shorten the flying stand, you can. It has been shown you can change this just not the black base portion.

Good luck, but dont worry common sense prevails!!

Caffran9 wrote:It does matter AT ALL what anyone on here says to do in terms of how to play it if you're bringing them to a tournament.

To be fair, he wasn't actually asking how people play it, just what the issues actually are.

Given the number of people who aren't aware of the problems with the model, making sure you know what to ask before contacting the TO (which was my impression of what this thread was for) is probably a good idea.

broxus wrote:To the OP, dont worry about it trust me they will allow you to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport for embarking and disembarking.

People keep saying this as if it's a solution...

It's treating the Valkyrie the same as every other transport vehicle that stops troops from being able to embark or disembark from it. Some sort of house rule is required to allow these actions, and as has been previously mentioned, there's a plethora of different ideas on how to best make that work.

So simply saying 'don't worry about it' and pretending that everything works fine is not at all helpful.

If they have an issue with it get a popsicle and a piece of tape...

That doesn't work any better now than it did the last time you suggested it, sorry.

Also, if you want to shorten the flying stand, you can. It has been shown you can change this just not the black base portion.

In practice, converting the flight base or just leaving it off is probably the easiest solution, and the one that I would think is the least likely to cause arguments... but the rules only allow it with your opponent's permission. It's in exactly the same territory as any of the other suggested house rules in that respect.

insaniak wrote:

Also, if you want to shorten the flying stand, you can. It has been shown you can change this just not the black base portion.

In practice, converting the flight base or just leaving it off is probably the easiest solution, and the one that I would think is the least likely to cause arguments... but the rules only allow it with your opponent's permission. It's in exactly the same territory as any of the other suggested house rules in that respect.

I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

The Gopher wrote:I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

The rulebook says that you can only use a base that is different to that supplied for the model with your opponent's consent.

The flight stem is an integral part of the flight base. Changing it changes the base.

The Gopher wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Also, if you want to shorten the flying stand, you can. It has been shown you can change this just not the black base portion.

In practice, converting the flight base or just leaving it off is probably the easiest solution, and the one that I would think is the least likely to cause arguments... but the rules only allow it with your opponent's permission. It's in exactly the same territory as any of the other suggested house rules in that respect.

I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

Yes, you are utterly wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

The Gopher wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Also, if you want to shorten the flying stand, you can. It has been shown you can change this just not the black base portion.

In practice, converting the flight base or just leaving it off is probably the easiest solution, and the one that I would think is the least likely to cause arguments... but the rules only allow it with your opponent's permission. It's in exactly the same territory as any of the other suggested house rules in that respect.

I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

Yes, you are utterly wrong.

To be fair, this has been a "solution" to the Valkyrie Problem that many posters have suggested. I can see how someone who is looking to others for rules guidance could have misconstrued that this was actually allowed by the rules.

"Cheese Elemental, meet Grav Chute Insertion.
Grav Chute Insertion, meet Cheese Elemental. "

i don't see how introducing Cheese to how disembarking is done if the Valkyrie / Vendetta moves flat out helps the OP or the discussion.

find out how valks are ruled in the tourney before paying entry fee!

alarmingrick wrote:"Cheese Elemental, meet Grav Chute Insertion.
Grav Chute Insertion, meet Cheese Elemental. "

i don't see how introducing Cheese to how disembarking is done if the Valkyrie / Vendetta moves flat out helps the OP or the discussion.

Because by the rules of the game you can't disembark any other way, except onto terrain that is elevated about 3".

Gwar! wrote:

The Gopher wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Also, if you want to shorten the flying stand, you can. It has been shown you can change this just not the black base portion.

In practice, converting the flight base or just leaving it off is probably the easiest solution, and the one that I would think is the least likely to cause arguments... but the rules only allow it with your opponent's permission. It's in exactly the same territory as any of the other suggested house rules in that respect.

I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

Yes, you are utterly wrong.

I thought politeness was stressed in this forum? You may be right a good portion of the time Gwar, but your adversarial responses don't really help get your point accross.

Thank you for the response willydstyle , I completely forgot about that paragraph as I dont play with any models on flying bases.

The Gopher wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, you are utterly wrong.

I thought politeness was stressed in this forum? You may be right a good portion of the time Gwar, but your adversarial responses don't really help get your point accross.

Christ All Mighty, you ask if you are wrong, and I let you know you are, and then you get pissy about it?

Danny Internets wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.

You know who you are.

Cheese Elemental, meet Grav Chute Insertion.
Grav Chute Insertion, meet Cheese Elemental.

except by RAW grave-chute insertion kills the entire squad about 65% of the time.

Red_Lives wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.You know who you are.

Cheese Elemental, meet Grav Chute Insertion.
Grav Chute Insertion, meet Cheese Elemental.

except by RAW grave-chute insertion kills the entire squad about 65% of the time.

Lol. Are you talking about the "if 1 model fails the Terrain test" thing? If so you are semi correct. The RaW is ambiguous, just like 90% of the Guard Codex

Edit: One does not need that many Linebreaks!

Dude I'll quote the rule.

"...If the unit scatters every model must immediately take a dangerous terrain test. If any of the models cannot be deployed, the unit is destroyed as described on the 1-2 result on the deepstrike mishap table."

If 1 model fails a dangerous terrain test they all die, by RAW>

Yes, and your point? Like I said the rule is Ambiguous. it is unclear whether the "Cannot deploy" is referencing the Deep Strike Mishap or not. Anyway, the way I see it, if they are making Dangerous Terrain tests, they have deployed already. If they Mishap, they never land and never take the DT tests.

That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

Red_Lives wrote:That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

I disagree. It's unambiguous RAW that you must deploy within 2" of an access point.

It is (slightly, IMO) ambiguous as to whether or not a model using Grav Chute Insertion that dies counts as being able to deploy or not.

willydstyle wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

I disagree. It's unambiguous RAW that you must deploy within 2" of an access point.

It is (slightly, IMO) ambiguous as to whether or not a model using Grav Chute Insertion that dies counts as being able to deploy or not.

willydstyle has it correct

insaniak wrote:

The Gopher wrote:I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

The rulebook says that you can only use a base that is different to that supplied for the model with your opponent's consent.

The flight stem is an integral part of the flight base. Changing it changes the base.

Sir,

You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base. No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base. If you want to go down this road on the argument, then hotshot lasguns MUST get FRSRF, because it has the word lasgun in the name. They are not the same thing so please dont act like they are. Im tired of people even try to argue this when they argue against the FRSRF for hotshot lasguns.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion and does make it legal. Of course that stick counts as part of the hull and counts for purposes LOS ect.

broxus wrote:

insaniak wrote:

The Gopher wrote:I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

The rulebook says that you can only use a base that is different to that supplied for the model with your opponent's consent.

The flight stem is an integral part of the flight base. Changing it changes the base.

Sir,

You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base. No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base. If you want to go down this road on the argument, then hotshot lasguns MUST get FRSRF, because it has the word lasgun in the name. They are not the same thing so please dont act like they are. Im tired of people even try to argue this when they argue against the FRSRF for hotshot lasguns.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion and does make it legal. Of course that stick counts as part of the hull and counts for purposes LOS ect.

Huh what? First off, conversions are never "legal" because there are no rules for converting models. They are a gaming convention that generally has implicit agreement by other players.

As far as the "hot shot lasgun" vs. flying base thing... well, wargear has specific names, whereas parts of models don't really. The tracks on a tank are "tracks" or "treads." The line between what is a "pintle" vs. a "turret" is similarly blurry. Can you tell me, specifically and unequivocally what the "hull" is on a valkyrie? Whereas a "hot shot lasgun" is always a "hot shot lasgun" and no other weapon is a "hot shot lasgun."

broxus wrote:You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base.

Can you quote a page and paragraph where that's written, please?

No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base.

'Doesn't say I can't' does not a rule make. Never has, and never will.

You need a rule that says you can modify the flight base.


However, in this case, we have a rule (page 3) that says that models are mounted on the bases with which they are supplied, and changes must be approved by your opponent.

A flight base is a base. The flight stem is a part of the flight base.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion

...if your opponent agrees to let you use it...


And, as explained in the other thread, it doesn't allow you to disembark, because disembarking is measured from the hull, not the lowered ramp.

A popsicle stick glued to the ramp is not a part of the hull. It's a popsicle stick glued to the ramp.

Gwar! wrote:

I'll go away now.

... if only...


On topic- As has been said before in this thread, it is totally up to the TO to decide how they will run their tourney and how they will rule on this issue. That is the answer to the OP's question.

Insaniak answered the other part wrt additional issues/possibilities that are out there, but the bottom line is that the OP needs to ask the TO what the ruling will be for that particular Tourney on this particular issue.

"Because by the rules of the game you can't disembark any other way, except onto terrain that is elevated about 3"."

the rules of the Valkyrie/Vendetta allow Grav Chute Insertion for moving flat out, not for disembarking period. if usage of common sense isn't allowed, then modifying the flight stem would be the only option. clearly it wasn't GW's intention to create a nice and shiny new model that nobody can use.

alarmingrick wrote: clearly it wasn't GW's intention to create a nice and shiny new model that nobody can use.

It can be used. Just not (by RAW) exactly as was probably intended.

Which isn't exactly a first for GW. Case in point: Assassins and Inquisitors.

When the DH codex was released, and it was first pointed out on the (now defunct) GW forums that you could only take an allied Assassin if you took an Inquisitor Lord (since you only get one Elite slot and so can't take a regular Inquisitor) the Devs initially said that this was a mistake... they had intended for you to be able to just take a regular Inquisitor. So while they figured out what to do about it, they added a ruling to the DH FAQ stating that the Assassins codex remained valid for those who just wanted an Assassin in their Marine or Guard armies.

Then a couple of months later they decided that errata was simply too hard, so the codex would stand as written and the (by then OOP) Assassins codex could go bye-byes... and so the FAQ was edited to state that C:Assassins was no longer valid, and we were thus stuck with the (completely unintentional) requirement of taking an Inquisitor Lord and associated retinue in order to get an Assassin into other Imperial armies.


The moral: The fact that a given piece of RAW is unintended doesn't mean that it won't stick. Given GW's current phobia on releasing errata, it's entirely possible that they'll come out with some statement to the effect that the Valkyrie doesn't have time to land in the midst of a firefight, or somesuch off-the-cuff explanation, and will rule that Grav Chute is the only way to disembark... because that's what wound up in the book and they don't want to change it as that confuses people.


So by all means use whatever house rules you and your opponent like. But I would recommend against assuming that the common sense answer is the one that will be held up by the rules.

insaniak wrote:

broxus wrote:You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base.

Can you quote a page and paragraph where that's written, please?

No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base.

'Doesn't say I can't' does not a rule make. Never has, and never will.

You need a rule that says you can modify the flight base.


However, in this case, we have a rule (page 3) that says that models are mounted on the bases with which they are supplied, and changes must be approved by your opponent.

A flight base is a base. The flight stem is a part of the flight base.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion

...if your opponent agrees to let you use it...


And, as explained in the other thread, it doesn't allow you to disembark, because disembarking is measured from the hull, not the lowered ramp.

A popsicle stick glued to the ramp is not a part of the hull. It's a popsicle stick glued to the ramp.

Let me say this in parts.

First, nowhere does it say that ramps are not part of hulls, so unless you can show me somewhere it is then we have to assume it is because it isnt listed. Read page 56 in the rulebook.

Second, your right about the conversion issue, really no conversions are allowed. THis means you cant use any FW stuff, Green stuff on your models, and to an extreme level glue or paint since they are things that actually convert them. Also, unless the weapon or item comes in the boxed set you can’t mix and match or convert them, technically. (Btw, all this is garbage in my opinion but if you want to go by the RAW this is the case). So if someone wants to become a rules laywer on you can tell them many models they are using are illegal.

Third, A flying base is not a base so the rule on page 3 in the rulebook doesn't apply. Of course if you think they are then you have to agree that hotshot lasguns are actually lasguns and therefore should get FRFSRF. Some of you are contradicting your selves. You are trying get your cake and eat it too. So which is it do Hot Shot Lasguns get FRFSRF and you can’t disembark normally from a Valkyire OR can we not use FRFSRF on Hot Shot Lasguns but can embark and disembark normally from our Valkyire’s if we change the flying stand size. It’s one way or the other!

Though, I think we all know the RAI were to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport, anyone who argues against this has been drinking far too much. We can argue about the RAW for it but WE ALL know what the RAI are for it. All my points are to give some leverage to help win the RAW debate and allow the model to be used as it was intended. I mean did anyone here actually read the White Dwarf that showcased the Valkyire? The entire mission was about embarking the commander and extracting him off an overran planet. In fact they set the Valkyire down on the table and never even used the 'flying base'

“Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent ‘flying bases’ under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmers hull, with the exceptions of the vehicles 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.”

It even states that the flying base is ignored except for assaults and don’t count, they even put the work ‘flying base’ in its own grouping and TELL you its ignored.

First, nowhere does it say that ramps are not part of hulls, so unless you can show me somewhere it is then we have to assume it is because it isnt listed. Read page 56 in the rulebook.

Awesome, that means I can attach 48" long popsicle sticks to the front of my Land Raider to extend the ramp, deploy it sideways, then pivot on the spot to get a first turn charge on anything on the board. You're cool with that, right? After all, it's part of the hull.

Better yet, I think I'll make all of my heavy flamer gun barrels 24" long.

Feel free to make drastic modifications to your vehicles to gain an advantage in game. Just don't expect anyone to let you use it, including tournament organizers.

Though, I think we all know the RAI were to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport,

As said many, many, many times now, using the rules as written is treating the Valkyrie as a normal transport.

Inventing house rules is not treating the Valkyrie as a normal transport, unless you invent house rules for all of your other vehicles as well.

Danny,

So I am lost here? Do you think you can embark and disembark from a Valkyire or not?


My point has been from the very beginning that in terms of objectives, embarking, and disembarking it should be treated as a normal transport and can do all of them.

All my posts are for those who insist on using RAW which doesnt allow these things. It gives players options to either convert the ramp or the flying base to make it fall within the RAW. Do I think it should come to that, absolultely not its slowed. Its your standard fight stupidity with stupidity tactic.

broxus wrote:Danny,

So I am lost here? Do you think you can embark and disembark from a Valkyire or not?


My point has been from the very beginning that in terms of objectives, embarking, and disembarking it should be treated as a normal transport and can do all of them.

All my posts are for those who insist on using RAW which doesnt allow these things. It gives players options to either convert the ramp or the flying base to make it fall within the RAW. Do I think it should come to that, absolultely not its slowed. Its your standard fight stupidity with stupidity tactic.

A normal transport has to measure to its hull for objectives, and to access points (which are on the hull) to embark/disembark. You should try to keep your language more civil as well.

willydstyle wrote:

broxus wrote:Danny,

So I am lost here? Do you think you can embark and disembark from a Valkyire or not?


My point has been from the very beginning that in terms of objectives, embarking, and disembarking it should be treated as a normal transport and can do all of them.

All my posts are for those who insist on using RAW which doesnt allow these things. It gives players options to either convert the ramp or the flying base to make it fall within the RAW. Do I think it should come to that, absolultely not its slowed. Its your standard fight stupidity with stupidity tactic.

A normal transport has to measure to its hull for objectives, and to access points (which are on the hull) to embark/disembark. You should try to keep your language more civil as well.

I have been very civil. I can understand that if people want to play the Valkyire as RAW and forget the RAI, but if they want to go down that road with me I can show them many things they do are RAI and not RAW. I have given two seperate ways to "fix" the Valkyire to make it fall in line with the RAW and I havent seen anyone who can dispute either of those ideas. I think many of you forget the rule on page two which is considered the most important rule. Your RAW obsession has made you forget that rule. There has not been a tournment yet that has ruled in your guys favor to make it so it cant embark or disembark troops, if so please show me the link.

The problem with trying to use RAI is we don't know the game devs actual intentions. Maybe they intended that you could only deploy by Grav Chute or atop a building. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Keep in mind, GW is a minatures company that happens to make a game to support the minis. They're not a gaming company that makes minis to play the game. As a result, their priority is to make cool models first, and then work out the rules later.

I can understand that if people want to play the Valkyire as RAW and forget the RAI

Funny how defining RAI is completely and utterly subjective.

I personally don't believe the model was designed to bestow huge advantages (unobstructed line of sight, being out of melta range) without also taking the disadvantages that come along with it.

According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist. Simply blind adherence to extremely flawed rules. Unfortunately, blind adherence also means deaf adherence, so you will not be able to argue on any grounds with people who play 100% strictly to the letter of RAW.

Designer intent is fairly obvious in most cases, but GW is so inconsistent and obviously does not have sufficient foresight nor hindsight nor communication to keep their game coherent in all situations (check out some older editions of the game when even such a basic rule as 'And they shall know no fear' varies between codices). Especially when dealing with legacy codices (Daemonhunters) or new and obviously not sufficiently clear rules (Valkyrie), I believe that a liberal dash of common sense is needed before trying to apply straight rules as written to a problem the rules were obviously not designed for.

To answer this dilemma... treating the Valkyrie like a normal transport means... you don't do anything special. You play exactly RAW, meaning you must deploy within 2 inches of the Hull, you measure melta range to the hull.
Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.



Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata? They have multiple means of reliable distribution - White Dwarf, online websites, GW and FLGS, even in each miniatures box...

I'm not sure I follow the issue at hand, maybe I'm just dense? Skimmer rules seem pretty cut and dry to me.

Pg. 71, Skimmers; Measuring Distances-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 skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer in which case models may move into contact with the with the vehicle's hull, it's base, or both.

According to that you flat out ignore how high off the table the model is for the purpose of dis/embark or assaults. Why the controversy around it?

According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist.

FAQs are an established and accepted source of rules. Always have been, always will be. Even a cursory glance at the forum will tell you this.

Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.

Given that it is common knowledge that GW regularly plays rules incorrectly in battle reports, wouldn't it be common sense not to look on said reports as any source of authority?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Diraphe wrote:I'm not sure I follow the issue at hand, maybe I'm just dense? Skimmer rules seem pretty cut and dry to me.

Pg. 71, Skimmers; Measuring Distances-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 skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer in which case models may move into contact with the with the vehicle's hull, it's base, or both.

According to that you flat out ignore how high off the table the model is for the purpose of dis/embark or assaults. Why the controversy around it?

You missed the part where all vehicle measurements are made to and from the HULL of the vehicle. The HULL of the Valkyrie is 5.25" in the air. Furthermore, when embarking and disembarking, models must be placed within 2" of the access point, which is also 5.25" in the air.

Trasvi wrote:According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist. Simply blind adherence to extremely flawed rules. Unfortunately, blind adherence also means deaf adherence, so you will not be able to argue on any grounds with people who play 100% strictly to the letter of RAW.

Designer intent is fairly obvious in most cases, but GW is so inconsistent and obviously does not have sufficient foresight nor hindsight nor communication to keep their game coherent in all situations (check out some older editions of the game when even such a basic rule as 'And they shall know no fear' varies between codices). Especially when dealing with legacy codices (Daemonhunters) or new and obviously not sufficiently clear rules (Valkyrie), I believe that a liberal dash of common sense is needed before trying to apply straight rules as written to a problem the rules were obviously not designed for.

To answer this dilemma... treating the Valkyrie like a normal transport means... you don't do anything special. You play exactly RAW, meaning you must deploy within 2 inches of the Hull, you measure melta range to the hull.
Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.



Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata? They have multiple means of reliable distribution - White Dwarf, online websites, GW and FLGS, even in each miniatures box...

The problem with common sense is that with a game as complex as this, common sense varies from person to person. Because of the variance, there will be different levels of interpretation. Interpretation is not law, but rather a flexible understanding that can be changed on a whim. This game needs rules to give it meaning, once we all agree to start unofficially making rules, we open a can of worms no one wants to eat. I am frustrated by the lack of clarity, however, in house games we use house rules to over come. In anything other than house games, I will not use any logic or fast thinking to circumvent what the rules actually say so as to achieve my desired outcome. For example, the rules for Valkyries don't allow them to drop troops, I will not use my brand of common sense or voodoo logic to get my desired outcome. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone else, and I wouldn't want someone doing it to me.

I agree whole heartedly, GW needs to get an errata team that pumps out regular and timely updates.

Trasvi wrote:According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist.

Quit a mouthfull. Most, if not all, "hardcore rules lawyers" acknowledge the existens of Intention and Common Sense. They also acknowledge the fact that they are highly subjective and may vary a great deal between individuals.

Only the most fanatical individuals (yes, im looking at you, Gwar! ) discard the FAQs.

Remember the rules ARE supposed to be used "as written". We all play that way 99% of the time. I have yet to hear a coherent argument for not doing so (and please don't qoute page 3). "I feel the rules should be played differently than they are written" is not a coherent argument.

"I don't think the rules properbly reflect the fluff about Genestealers and I believe they intended them to be able to move 12". They just made a typo".

See? Doesn't make any sense does it?

"I don't think the rules properbly reflect the fluff about Valkyries and I believe they intended them to be able to [insert bit about (dis)embarkation]. They just made a typo".

See? No difference.

Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata? They have multiple means of reliable distribution - White Dwarf, online websites, GW and FLGS, even in each miniatures box...

You got me stumped here. I have NO idea why GW doesn't make proper FAQs?

I simply cannot believe it is because they don't want to admit they made a mistake/unclear rule.
I simply cannot believe it is because they don't have the manpower to do it.
I simply cannot believe it is because they cannot actually see the issues.

I have no idea.

On the other hand: "Spase Marinez have the rule "ATSKNF""
O look, there are no models called Spase Marinez. Only space marines. Sorry, you can't use the rule. They just made a typo.

In your example of Genestealers vs Valkyries - there isn't anywhere that suggests they should move 12". On the other hand, simply the fact of being a transport implies that the valkyrie should possess the necessary tools to function as a transport.
I would also say that the amount of rules queries regarding Valkyries suggest that their functionality is decidedly unclear. More importantly, the number of people I see who DON'T question the rules and simply play that you may deploy within 2" of the base suggests to me that it is unclear and that the logical way of treating the Valk is not the strict RAW sense.


And as for not knowing the RAI... sure, you never know exactly what the dev's were thinking. But there are some things where you can make some pretty damn good guesses that 99% of the reasonable population would also make.
Would you assume that if your book gave special rules to Spase Marines, the designers intent was that Space Marines were unaffected?

Steelmage99 wrote:Only the most fanatical individuals (yes, im looking at you, Gwar! ) discard the FAQs.

I love you too hunnybunny!

However, I just want to point out, I do not discard the FAQ, I Discard the parts of the FAQ that are rules changes. For example the Deff Dread Attacks Question. The rules are utterly Clear on the subject, and the FAQ is wrong. If they wanted to change the number of attacks, they should have put it as an errata, not an FAQ.

Gwar! wrote:

The Gopher wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, you are utterly wrong.

I thought politeness was stressed in this forum? You may be right a good portion of the time Gwar, but your adversarial responses don't really help get your point accross.

Christ All Mighty, you ask if you are wrong, and I let you know you are, and then you get pissy about it?

A simply yes was sufficient, throwing the word 'utterly' in was unnecessary to getting your point across and just makes you sound elitist and rude.

The Gopher wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

The Gopher wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, you are utterly wrong.

I thought politeness was stressed in this forum? You may be right a good portion of the time Gwar, but your adversarial responses don't really help get your point accross.

Christ All Mighty, you ask if you are wrong, and I let you know you are, and then you get pissy about it?

A simply yes was sufficient, throwing the word 'utterly' in was unnecessary to getting your point across and just makes you sound elitist and rude.

Spilled milk - there are better things to talk about.

Flexen wrote:Spilled milk - there are better things to talk about.

There are, however I was irritated that he played himself off as innocent. I'm done with this.

Danny Internets wrote:

I can understand that if people want to play the Valkyire as RAW and forget the RAI

Funny how defining RAI is completely and utterly subjective.

I personally don't believe the model was designed to bestow huge advantages (unobstructed line of sight, being out of melta range) without also taking the disadvantages that come along with it.

Hey brother I hear you, a IG player cant have his cake and eat it also. The way we play it is shoot the base, there is NO way you shouldnt be able to hit it with a melta if you can embark/disembark. Now being able to fly so high for LOS is an advantage but a huge disadvantage. You can see everything but everythign can see you and my Vendetta dies pretty fast.

broxus wrote:First, nowhere does it say that ramps are not part of hulls, so unless you can show me somewhere it is then we have to assume it is because it isnt listed. Read page 56 in the rulebook.

Yep, poorly worded on my part. What I should have said is that you measure to the access point, not the lowered ramp.

The access point is the actual doorway on the side of the tank. Check the example picture on page 67. No lowered ramps... measurement is to the actual hatchway.

Second, your right about the conversion issue, really no conversions are allowed. THis means you cant use any FW stuff, Green stuff on your models, and to an extreme level glue or paint since they are things that actually convert them. Also, unless the weapon or item comes in the boxed set you can’t mix and match or convert them, technically. (Btw, all this is garbage in my opinion but if you want to go by the RAW this is the case). So if someone wants to become a rules laywer on you can tell them many models they are using are illegal.

I think you have completely missed my point.

I never said we shouldn't allow conversions. My point was simply that using a conversion to get around the rules is no different to just creating a house rule.

Third, A flying base is not a base

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

Unless you can provide a rules quote that actually backs that up, I'm going to continue with the idea that a base is, in fact, a base. Due to, you know, being a base.

Of course if you think they are then you have to agree that hotshot lasguns are actually lasguns and therefore should get FRFSRF.

Not having seen the relevant codex entries, I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. Which is why I haven't posted one. Not sure how you think I've contradicted myself there.

Though, I think we all know the RAI were to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport,

Which, once again, is exactly the problem...

All my points are to give some leverage to help win the RAW debate and allow the model to be used as it was intended.

You won't 'win' the RAW debate. It was over days ago, in a completely different thread, and you haven't posted anything here that wasn't already covered before.

RAW, models cannot embark or disembark from ground level, and the Valk can not contest ground-level objectives. It's that simple.

And to use the model as 'intended' (which we're just guessing at anyway) I already provided a list back on the second post in this thread of 7 different potential house rules that have been suggested in threads so far, which includes the suggestions that you're trying to pass off as RAW.

It even states that the flying base is ignored except for assaults and don’t count,

...for measurement purposes, yes. You measure to the hull, not the base. Again, that's the problem...

they even put the work ‘flying base’ in its own grouping and TELL you its ignored.

The quotes around the words 'flying base' tell us that the base isn't actually flying. Not that it's something other than a base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.

...which is the same conclusion that most people on this board have reached as well.

We simply accept that to do so requires a house rule.

Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata?

They claim that doing so
a) chews up too many resources that would otherwise be spent developing new stuff and
b) publishing FAQs too often confuses people.

What's Grav Chute insertion?

Is this a made up rule? Something in the IG codex? I've never heard of it before.

Dashofpepper wrote:What's Grav Chute insertion?

Is this a made up rule? Something in the IG codex? I've never heard of it before.

It's a special rule for the Valkyrie made to allow models to disembark legally from it.

I see. I presume the rule is available only in the new IG codex?

Dashofpepper wrote:I see. I presume the rule is available only in the new IG codex?

Most likely. I doubt it will be located in the Ork codex will it

Well, it can't be in the BRB, but there could be a FAQ somewhere so that the rest of us non-IG players can read about a new rule...

"It's a special rule for the Valkyrie made to allow models to disembark from it" after the Valkyrie or Vendetta has moved flat out.
i can't beleive Gwar is leaving part of the rule out? really?

alarmingrick wrote:"It's a special rule for the Valkyrie made to allow models to disembark from it" after the Valkyrie or Vendetta has moved flat out.
i can't beleive Gwar is leaving part of the rule out? really?

Errrm, yes and? It is still a special rule to allow them to disembark. They cannot disembark any other way unless they disembark onto raised terrain.

"They cannot disembark any other way unless they disembark onto raised terrain."
the rule states it allows them to disembark after moving flat out, not period. clearly their intent was to allow other forms of disemarking. and given the new ability for being able to "disembark onto raised terrain", is there a rule for that? does any other vehicle have that ability? i have a feeling if someone wanted to "disembark onto raised terrain", there would be a problem doing that, rules wise. but it's okay for now because it gives people a way to say "see you can disembark! that's clearly what they ment!"

alarmingrick wrote:and given the new ability for being able to "disembark onto raised terrain", is there a rule for that?

It's not a new ability. It's a side effect of the disembarking rules. You disembark within 2" of the access point. If the vehicle is 5" up in the air, that would allow you to disembark onto the top of 4" tall terrain.

does any other vehicle have that ability?

Every vehicle uses the same disembarking rules (2" from access point, or from hull if open-topped), yes.

i have a feeling if someone wanted to "disembark onto raised terrain", there would be a problem doing that, rules wise.

Like what?

but it's okay for now because it gives people a way to say "see you can disembark! that's clearly what they ment!"

'People' in this case largely being Gwar Pretty much everyone else has agreed that it was probably supposed to be able to work just like any other transport vehicle. It just doesn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Diraphe wrote:I'm not sure I follow the issue at hand, maybe I'm just dense? Skimmer rules seem pretty cut and dry to me.

Pg. 71, Skimmers; Measuring Distances-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 skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer in which case models may move into contact with the with the vehicle's hull, it's base, or both.

According to that you flat out ignore how high off the table the model is for the purpose of dis/embark or assaults. Why the controversy around it?

Danny Internets wrote:You missed the part where all vehicle measurements are made to and from the HULL of the vehicle. The HULL of the Valkyrie is 5.25" in the air. Furthermore, when embarking and disembarking, models must be placed within 2" of the access point, which is also 5.25" in the air.

I didn't miss anything, read what I bolded, it does say that measurements are made from the hull, then makes clear exceptions for access points/weapons/firepoints.

insaniak wrote:'People' in this case largely being Gwar Pretty much everyone else has agreed that it was probably supposed to be able to work just like any other transport vehicle. It just doesn't.

I love you too sugarbuns!

It can be "supposed" to work till the cows come home, it doesn't. If my Car is Supposed to go left when I turn the Steering Wheel left, but it doesn't, I still haven't gone left have I?

Diraphe wrote:I didn't miss anything, read what I bolded, it does say that measurements are made from the hull, then makes clear exceptions for access points/weapons/firepoints.

Yes, it does... because those things have their own rules.

Access points... you measure to the actual access point, instead of the hull.
Fire Points... you measure to the actual fire point, instead of the hull.
Weapons ranges... you measure to the actual weapon, instead of the hull.

That's why they're listed as an exception. You measure to the exact point, rather than just to the vehicle's hull, or to the base.

The reference to ignoring the base is to clarify that you measure to the hull (or to those specific points mentioned) instead of to the base. It doesn't say to pretend that the vehicle is sitting lower than it actually is... it just says not to measure distances to the base.

It does the exact opposite of proving your point, sorry, because it's measuring to the actual vehicle instead of the base that causes the problems in the first place.

Gwar! wrote:It can be "supposed" to work till the cows come home, it doesn't. If my Car is Supposed to go left when I turn the Steering Wheel left, but it doesn't, I still haven't gone left have I?

Your point being?

You don't need to keep popping in every time someone mentions using a house rule to point out that the house rule isn't RAW. We all know that house rules aren't RAW. Some people choose to use them anyway.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It can be "supposed" to work till the cows come home, it doesn't. If my Car is Supposed to go left when I turn the Steering Wheel left, but it doesn't, I still haven't gone left have I?

Your point being?

You don't need to keep popping in every time someone mentions using a house rule to point out that the house rule isn't RAW. We all know that house rules aren't RAW. Some people choose to use them anyway.

This is not the forum for discussing RaI or house rules.

This is quite often the forum for discussing RAI and house rules.

Even ignoring the frequent 'How do you play it' threads, quite often we'll talk about the RAW, and then once that's resolved we'll discuss various house rules that people use instead of the RAW.

You know, like I did back on page 1.

insaniak wrote:This is quite often the forum for discussing RAI and house rules.

Even ignoring the frequent 'How do you play it' threads, quite often we'll talk about the RAW, and then once that's resolved we'll discuss various house rules that people use instead of the RAW.

You know, like I did back on page 1.

Ya know this method is RAW as given in PG2 of the BGB.

Red_Lives wrote:

insaniak wrote:This is quite often the forum for discussing RAI and house rules.

Even ignoring the frequent 'How do you play it' threads, quite often we'll talk about the RAW, and then once that's resolved we'll discuss various house rules that people use instead of the RAW.

You know, like I did back on page 1.

Ya know this method is RAW as given in PG2 of the BGB.

Page 2 also says I autowin on a roll of a 1+. If you object, we roll off. If you don't let the roll off happen you are TFG for breaking TMIR

No it doesn't because that would make the other player mad, therefor breaking the PG 2 rule. As much as you may hate it, house rules are RAW.

Red_Lives wrote:No it doesn't because that would make the other player mad, therefor breaking the PG 2 rule. As much as you may hate it, house rules are RAW.

You house rules make me mad, therefore breaking the PG 2 Rule. As much as you may hate it, Playing by the RaW is RaW.

But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

Red_Lives wrote:But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

If RaW can be interpreted in two equally valid ways, you just decide which one to use before each game, as each is valid and right.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

If RaW can be interpreted in two equally valid ways, you just decide which one to use before each game, as each is valid and right.

The fact that such situations even exist is testament of the unsuitability of the Warhammer 40k ruleset for anything but the most casual environments.

So Gwar let me ask you this:

Which can you do as an IG player. Change the size of a flying base because it isnt the same as a base or can we use FRFSF on the Hot Shot Lasguns?

You see if they wanted flying bases to be the same they would have been listed as 'flying' bases not 'flying bases'.

I would much rather get the chance to use the hotshot lasguns with FRFSRF.

Thanks

Errm... The Flying base by definition includes the base and plastic flight stick. "Hotshot Lasguns" are no more "Lasguns" than "Lascannons" or Storm Bolters are Boltguns

Gwar, the flying base is NOT the base. Read it again.

Page 71, second paragraph:
Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull.

Its a seperate item then the base which is discussed later in the paragraph. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer.

It talks about them as if they are completly seperate items. You dont ever assault the flying base, just the base the large oval circle at the bottom.

If they wanted the 'flying base' to become part of the base they would have made the rule read like this.

Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying base' as part of the base which is underneath the hull.

If GW wanted flying bases as part of bases they would have stated and put it in page 2 also. You are trying to use RAI not RAW. IF they wanted 'fying bases' to be treated as bases they would have stated they are the same thing and not made a special note to make it seperate.

NOW what you are trying to say is that a flying base is a type of a base and should be treated as a base and any rules for bases apply to 'flying bases' because it has the word base in it. THat is the same logic that hotshot lasguns are the same as lasguns because it has the word lasgun in its description. You have argued very hard against this so why does this logic not apply.

So Gwar which is it?

broxus wrote:So Gwar which is it?

All of them and none of them. After all Page 2 lets us ignore all the rules!

Also, before the Valk was released, the Flying bases were ALL The transparent one. This is a case of a Model changing and the Rulebook being unable to accommodate it.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

If RaW can be interpreted in two equally valid ways, you just decide which one to use before each game, as each is valid and right.

The fact that such situations even exist is testament of the unsuitability of the Warhammer 40k ruleset for anything but the most casual environments.

Gwar! wrote:

broxus wrote:So Gwar which is it?

All of them and none of them. After all Page 2 lets us ignore all the rules!

Also, before the Valk was released, the Flying bases were ALL The transparent one. This is a case of a Model changing and the Rulebook being unable to accommodate it.

Regardless of the changes to bases and 'flying bases', RAW say nothing about getting your opponents permission to use using the 'flying bases' the model comes with only the base. RAI, I wont debate because lets be honest Gwar you are the most to the letter RAW guy I know, so please admit that by the RAW it doesnt say you cant change your 'flying base'. Otherwise admit you can FRFSRF Hotshot Lasguns, Ill take this anyday.

Errrm... I have always maintained you cannot change the base.

Im talking about the 'flying base' there is nothing that says you cant change that. The 'flying base' isnt the same thing as the base. If it is then 'Hotshot Lasguns' are all lasguns that get FRSRF.

Just because one word of each is the same doesnt make it the samething. Im sure you will continue to dodge the question, but RAW I am right.

No, you are not. But hey, don't let that stop you

Can you please show me where I am wrong please?

I think I showed you a couple of pages ago, but you ignored my response.

willydstyle wrote:I think I showed you a couple of pages ago, but you ignored my response.

Like any good rules debate

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:I think I showed you a couple of pages ago, but you ignored my response.

Like any good rules debate

Everyone knows that the only answers that matter are Gwar!s answers

Actually you never showed me rules, you only said no conversions are legal. Well, as discussed that means no one has a legal army. Though, I cant find a page where it says you cant convert your army anywhere (not saying it doesnt exist)

I am simply saying use the rules and show me where it says you cant modify a 'flying base'. If you cant and still want to argue that a flying base = a base, then i will argue that a hotshot lasgun = a lasgun. Its simple!

broxus wrote: Though, I cant find a page where it says you cant convert your army anywhere

We covered that several pages ago as well.

Once again, what you're looking for is not a rule saying you can't... you need a rule that says you can.

The rulebook can't list every single thing that you can not do in a game of 40K. That would be impossible. What the rulebook does instead is provide you with a framework of rules that tells you what you can do.

There is no rule that says you can modify the flight base without your opponent's permission.

In fact, if you're going to argue that a 'flight base' isn't a 'base' then the rule saying that you can use a different base with your opponent's permission applies only to regular bases, and not flight bases... in which case there is no rule allowing you to modify your flight base at all, opponent's permission or no.

broxus wrote:Actually you never showed me rules, you only said no conversions are legal. Well, as discussed that means no one has a legal army. Though, I cant find a page where it says you cant convert your army anywhere (not saying it doesnt exist)

I am simply saying use the rules and show me where it says you cant modify a 'flying base'. If you cant and still want to argue that a flying base = a base, then i will argue that a hotshot lasgun = a lasgun. Its simple!

Actually I showed you have verbiage for models is non-specific (tracks vs. treads for example) whereas the verbiage for wargear is specific.

Actually, it just seems to me that many people are trying to have it both ways. Its for the best we never would play each other because we wouldnt get the pieces down. I never see any page numbers to refrence from you just this is how we belive it should be.

My entire point for this post is if you have an issue with me embarking and disembarking my troops from a valkyire, then I will be able to show you a million loopholes that we can argue until the next version comes out.

I dont think you should have to modify the size of the flying base to be able to load and unload troops, RAI are very clear on this one. In regards to the Hotshot lasguns getting FRSRF, who knows how this will end up. I can see it going either way with the FAQ and RAI are vague. Personally I could care less because Storm Troopers are still way overpriced even if they can compared to vets.

broxus wrote: I never see any page numbers to refrence from you just this is how we belive it should be.

You won't get a page reference for a rule that doesn't exist.

Once again, the lack of a rule allowing something means that it isn't allowed. There's no need for a page reference, nor is one possible.


If you want to claim that something is allowed, you need a rule to back that up. So far, you have failed to provide one, and just claimed that a flight base is not a base with nothing to back that up.

I dont think you should have to modify the size of the flying base to be able to load and unload troops,

You have to apply some sort of house rule to be able to load and unload troops. Again, modifying the base is only one of several different options there.

I guess I have to re-iterate, again, that I think that it is RAI that you should be able to disembark from a valkyrie, and if playing against an opponent fielding one, I would allow it.

I just think all the rules lawyering that is happening to try to provide RAW justifications for being able to do so (when there are none) is a bit silly.

Making house rules is 100% appropriate.

Expecting your opponent to agree to them without discussion first is 100% inappropriate.

willydstyle wrote:I guess I have to re-iterate, again, that I think that it is RAI that you should be able to disembark from a valkyrie, and if playing against an opponent fielding one, I would allow it.

I just think all the rules lawyering that is happening to try to provide RAW justifications for being able to do so (when there are none) is a bit silly.

Making house rules is 100% appropriate.

Expecting your opponent to agree to them without discussion first is 100% inappropriate.

QFT...cheater.

Its been pointed out over and over again how this model fails to interact properly (as is obviously RAI) with the existing ruleset.

Because it does not interact properly, individual players are justified in thinking that it can not do some things that are intuitive - according to the rules.

Most people compromise on this and figure out which rules to break to make it work best for them. That's fine... but other people might think you should break a couple different rules and play it differently.

Thats why until this is FAQ'd IG players need to contact TO's and work out with their friends/opponents how to play it. If you play IG and do not bring up any issues with your model before the game and "spring" your way of playing it on you opponent, you'd be TFG.

Same goes for IG players' opponents though. The couple times when I've seen an opponent pulling out a Valk, I asked immediately how they wanted to play it. If you don't, you are setting yourself up for a disagreement mid-game.

The point is that the model obviously doesn't work strictly as intended, and ignoring the rules you are breaking to enforce your interpretation of how its played is being TFG. The first step is admitting there is a problem with the model.

RustyKnight wrote:QFT...cheater.

Hey that's my line!

Dracos wrote:The first step is admitting there is a problem with the model.

The thing is, there is no problem with the model, it just doesn't work how people assumed it would.

Fine tell your opponents their valks can't disembark, good luck finding opponents. I have no intention of either being TFG or endorsing someone who is advocating it.

Dracos wrote:Fine tell your opponents their valks can't disembark, good luck finding opponents. I have no intention of either being TFG or endorsing someone who is advocating it.

Odd, I was under the Impression TFG is the guy who says he can break the rules and it's not cheating.

You do realise that the Valkyrie has some pretty serious advantages when played by the RaW too? Or do you want to claim RaI and get the Advantages but deny the disadvantages? You know, like TFG.

Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

broxus wrote:Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

Yeah, ya know, except the people who made the model and wrote the rules. Or are you suggesting they didn't intend to type out those specific words when they wrote the rulebooks or the didn't intend for us to get a 5" Flying Stand? Perhaps they Intended it to be 2" and, well gosh darn, the boys in production made an error Several Thousand times?

RaI is ALWAYS RaW. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it is the truth. If they want to change the RaI, write the rule correctly the first time or Issue an Errata.

broxus wrote:Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

Now, now. If you bait him, he'll just call you a cheater again.

Gwar! wrote:Or are you suggesting they didn't intend to type out those specific words when they wrote the rulebooks or the didn't intend for us to get a 5" Flying Stand?

They certainly intended to write what they wrote. Whether they intended that to actually function the way it does is anyone's guess. It wouldn't be the first time (again, see my Assassins/Inquisitor example) that they've written a rule without fully thinking through the consequenses of it.

And as someone mentioned a while back, the guy writing the rules most likely had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to package the Valkyrie with the new flight base. I wouldn't be at all surprised if whatever playtesting was done in-house was done with either Forgeworld models or the new Valk sans base.

RAI and RAW are sometimes different things. The reason we tend to stick to RAW is that GW rarely tell us what they intended... not because we assume that what they wrote is how they actually intended it to work.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, ya know, except the people who made the model and wrote the rules. Or are you suggesting they didn't intend to type out those specific words when they wrote the rulebooks or the didn't intend for us to get a 5" Flying Stand? Perhaps they Intended it to be 2" and, well gosh darn, the boys in production made an error Several Thousand times?

RaI is ALWAYS RaW. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it is the truth. If they want to change the RaI, write the rule correctly the first time or Issue an Errata.

Actually I think that when it was in design they envisioned using the standard base and then switched later, or maybe did not even consider the base.

Breaking the rules is RAW too, its even stated as being the most important rule. Its all but an admission that they can not write rules properly so basically if something doesn't jive then figure out with your opponent which rules to break.

Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

mikhaila wrote:

broxus wrote:Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

Now, now. If you bait him, he'll just call you a cheater again.

Well, he is abusing "TMIR" to deliberately change a rule that is very clear because he doesn't want the disadvantages that rule entails. Yeah that is cheating.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:Breaking the rules is RAW too, its even stated as being the most important rule.

God Damnit, STOP USING TMIR TO JUSTIFY CHEATING!

TMIR is used to allow for situations where the RaW is unclear or where it conflicts. It does not give wholesale licence to cheat, which is what you are doing.

Its only cheating if you don't agree to compromise. Sure, you can say no, but again you are being TFG if you refuse to play by the most important rule. Don't like how your opponent proposes it should be played, then COMPROMISE or roll off. Thats the rules.

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

Oh, I'm glad I wont play you then.
I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

Oh, I'm glad I wont play you then.
I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

Sure buddy. I say you should compromise about a model that does not interact intuitively or RAI, and you just want to roll to win on a 1+. But I'm being TFG, not you. Right.

You know what, go ahead. Do it at home right now, we'll have a game over the internets. YOU WIN. Gratz.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

Oh, I'm glad I wont play you then.
I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

Sure buddy. I say you should compromise about a model that does not interact intuitively or RAI, and you just want to roll to win on a 1+. But I'm being TFG, not you. Right.

You know what, go ahead. Do it at home right now, we'll have a game over the internets. YOU WIN. Gratz.

You are being TFG by your own Definition:

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

I want to play by TMIR by winning on a 1+. If you refuse, you are TFG. This is exactly why people should play by the actual rules, rather than use TMIR as a Justification to cheat.

P.S. Thanks for the Soundbite

Actually I would definately agree that for the game we were about to play, you would win on a 1+,

Of course not so much if it was a tourney game, but in that case your opinion of how the model works is irrelevant since I would clear it up first with the TO.

It would be the shortest game ever, with you winning on a single dice roll. As I said, we can do it now if you want and get it out of the way. Gratz on the win buddy, now good luck finding other players to play against, cause that was our first and last game. I'm sure that such an event is not unusual for you if you play like this IRL.

Dracos wrote:Actually I would definately agree that for the game we were about to play, you would win on a 1+,

Of course not so much if it was a tourney game, but in that case your opinion of how the model works is irrelevant since I would clear it up first with the TO.

It would be the shortest game ever, with you winning on a single dice roll. As I said, we can do it now if you want and get it out of the way. Gratz on the win buddy, now good luck finding other players to play against, cause that was our first and last game. I'm sure that such an event is not unusual for you if you play like this IRL.

No, I like playing the game by the rules. If you are going to use TMIR to cheat, I'll do it back. If you want to play the game properly, I'd have no problem with it.

Gwar! wrote:I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

I'll agree to that. But in the spirit of compromise, you have to use my dice:

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

I'll agree to that. But in the spirit of compromise, you have to use my dice:

And I shall retort by requiring you to also use those dice should I lose my roll to autowin

I'm sure everyone reading this can tell who is being TFG.

Anyways I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, GL finding opponents with your attitude.

Dracos wrote:I'm sure everyone reading this can tell who is being TFG.

Anyways I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, GL finding opponents with your attitude.

I'd bet that Gwar! has no problems finding opponents. I usually do play entirely RaW. Infact, I can't remember the last time I did play something majorly RaI. Hell, I'd love to play Gwar! at least once (course, I don't use anything with unclear rules).

RustyKnight wrote:

Dracos wrote:I'm sure everyone reading this can tell who is being TFG.

Anyways I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, GL finding opponents with your attitude.

I'd bet that Gwar! has no problems finding opponents. I usually do play entirely RaW. Infact, I can't remember the last time I did play something majorly RaI. Hell, I'd love to play Gwar! at least once (course, I don't use anything with unclear rules).

No, go ahead and use things with Unclear rules. We can use TMIR to determine how they work Pre Game. Of course, a Valkyrie does not fall under the "Unclear Rules" banner, which has been my point this entire thread.

Gwar! wrote:No, go ahead and use things with Unclear rules. We can use TMIR to determine how they work Pre Game. Of course, a Valkyrie does not fall under the "Unclear Rules" banner, which has been my point this entire thread.

It's not that I avoid them, I just don't own any of them (yet ). I agree, Valk rules are clear.

I would rather fight Gwar! than most of the other posters I see on this board, Dracos. It seems like your idea of "compromise" is "agree 100% with me."

I would play Gwar, but I would tell him all his conversions are illegal and he cant play with them. So pretty much we wouldnt get the chance,

Now in the realm of reality, in a tournment no one will rule on his side about the Valkyire not being able to embark and disembark troops.

broxus wrote:I would play Gwar, but I would tell him all his conversions are illegal and he cant play with them. So pretty much we wouldnt get the chance,

Now in the realm of reality, in a tournment no one will rule on his side about the Valkyire not being able to embark and disembark troops.

I'm not sure about that. If I were to run a tournament, I would stick to RAW as closely as possible, and reserve judgments for things that are actually ambiguous. If the players were not able to decide amongst themselves, then I would make a judgment in the favor of clear RAW.

Why do people insist that the transparent stick isn't part of the base?
Don't they realize the issues cropping up with that rather odd way of thinking?

I want to poke the bear

Are there any rules stopping me from fielding these even in a strict RAW environment? Either make it legal for a squad to disembark from at least one access point.




Note that neither the flight stand, base, nor model itself has been modified, only the way that the three interact. I doubt GW was competent enough to specify how a base must be attached to a model.

"Dude, my Valkyrie pilots are doing some crazy dogfight maneuvers!"

Wouldn't it be better to just agree on a house rule and not have your valkyries looking ridiculous?

MODERATION:

I've acted upon several user post alerts for this thread and have deleted and edited several posts and one user has had a temporary ban installed.
Please remember 'Dakka rule 1' when posting here or the thread will be locked.


Waaagh_Gonads

I gotta question...... how does shaving down the base of the valkyrie make the base not the base it came with...... That's kinda like saying that if I shaved my beard..... I wouldn't be the same person


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Lives wrote:That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

This is where my "ball kicking" method of dealing with rules lawyers comes into play...... you get to be a rules lawyer, but each time you behave like one, I get to kick you in the balls.

-The initial issues have been stated earlier.

-The issue of whether shaving down the base constituted changing the base is contested (I don't see how myself, the"base" remains the same width)

-Everything has been argued ad nauseum. For the tourney bug the OT if you feel the need or clarify prior to the game if you have a valk/opponent has a valk.

-remember boys and girls, your definitions of TFG are irrelevant. If other people think you're a TFG then you're a TFG.

This thread is closed. Warnings will not be given although they should be.


Gak I hate this topic.