I just recently got back from a local 40K tourney and had an absolute blast. My 3rd game though had a very interesting issue arise on turn 2 when my opponent outflanked his squardron of two Vendetta's. They came on in such a way near the board edge that not only did his Vendetta's overlap each other physically but also overlap my own models by coming well within an inch to several. I obviously thought this was not within the rules and called a rules official over. In the end, my opponent basically was allowed to place a squadron of two Vendetta's in an area that could really only accomodate one.

The official ruling at the tournament was that the Vendetta's wings and tail section of the model are not taken into account when determining if the model(s) are within an inch of your opponents or overlaping each other. Is this really legit?

Please see attached picture.
Thanks.

1) Make the poll right.
2) Even so, the Tail is more than 1" vertically above the Enemy it is not not? If so it would be legal. Just because they are OVER the model, they do not occupy the same space. So long as they are 1" over the enemy model, they are fine.
3) Nothing illegal about overlapping a friendly vendetta. They can be touching hull to hull if they so want.
4) Gogo Modelling for advantage, kicking it old school since 1980something.

I was the opponent in question. Sorry its bothering you so much, i feel bad about that really.

It should be noted that I had asked how it would be ruled before the tournament started so I would know how to play it.

However the GW rep (someone pretty high up in events planning, sorry I forget his name) at the tournament said he is going to request that the Ard Boyz rule packet include a ruling specifically on how the vendetta should be used. He agreed that it is very confusing and that it is something that needs to be officially clarified.

That way guys like the OP will not be surprised and I will know in advance how it will be ruled for sure when I build my list.

bigtmac68 wrote:I was the opponent in question. Sorry its bothering you so much, i feel bad about that really.

It should be noted that I had asked how it would be ruled before the tournament started so I would know how to play it.

However the GW rep (someone pretty high up in events planning, sorry I forget his name) at the tournament said he is going to request that the Ard Boyz rule packet include a ruling specifically on how the vendetta should be used. He agreed that it is very confusing and that it is something that needs to be officially clarified.

That way guys like the OP will not be surprised and I will know in advance how it will be ruled for sure when I build my list.

Ya'll shouldn't feel bad, So long as the tail was more than 1" above the speeders, you would have been 100% watertight fine.

Was the tail more than 1" above the speeders?

yes the tail was well above the speeders, his complaint was that it should not be allowed to be over the speeder in any case regardless of the distance. I know the rule he is referring to, the one about hovering speeders, and i understand his point too.

First thing I was wondering is how can a Valkyrie ( Vendetta ) as a transport allow a unit to disembark 2" from it ( as nearly six inches above the tabletop ) and at the same time remain more than 1" above a model like a Dreadnought or Land Speeder on a flight stand ?

Second thing, and more rule specific, is the entry in the rulebook for Moving Skimmers ( page 71 ) "...skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either..."

Clearly one Vendetta is on top of the other.

The problem stems from two things

1) You're right
2) you're wrong

How is that possible? Judges

Some will say they cant do that (Im in agreement due to the above statement and I prefer playing a bit abstractly which speeds up the game like in 4th ed)

However others will say "skimmers only exist in terms of their flying bases cause GW said flying bases = the model".. So technically as long as their BASE doesnt end on top then its fine

Does it make sense? I dont know cause I got bored trying to decipher their 5th edition changes that didnt help make the game better (Wound allocation, true LOS, skimmer insanity)

At the end of the day it comes down to the judge who probably doesnt even play 40k except for ultramarines every 2 years :p (no offense to anyone just every single judge ive seen in my area or store owner plays ultramarines and only once every edition)

toxic_wisdom wrote:First thing I was wondering is how can a Valkyrie ( Vendetta ) as a transport allow a unit to disembark 2" from it ( as nearly six inches above the tabletop ) and at the same time remain more than 1" above a model like a Dreadnought or Land Speeder on a flight stand ?

It can't. If you're measuring purely horizontally for disembarking, you would have to measure purely horizontally for proximity as well.

Of course, then it comes down to which parts of the model you consider for measurement.

Second thing, and more rule specific, is the entry in the rulebook for Moving Skimmers ( page 71 ) "...skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either..."
Clearly one Vendetta is on top of the other.

That really depends on how you define 'on top'

One Vendetta is clearly partially above the other... but to me, one of them being 'on top' of the other would require one to be physically sitting on the other.

My mug is sitting on top of the desk, while the ceiling is merely above it, not on top of it.

Being above another model is fine. Otherwise you would never be able to have models on different levels in ruins.

toxic_wisdom wrote:First thing I was wondering is how can a Valkyrie ( Vendetta ) as a transport allow a unit to disembark 2" from it ( as nearly six inches above the tabletop ) and at the same time remain more than 1" above a model like a Dreadnought or Land Speeder on a flight stand ?

Second thing, and more rule specific, is the entry in the rulebook for Moving Skimmers ( page 71 ) "...skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either..."

Clearly one Vendetta is on top of the other.

This bears repeating. GW doesn't need to clarify what's going on, and the judges simply have to see that the rules are enforced.

Kirasu wrote:However others will say "skimmers only exist in terms of their flying bases cause GW said flying bases = the model".. So technically as long as their BASE doesnt end on top then its fine

And they would be wrong, since the rules say to ignore flight bases for everything except assaulting the vehicle.

I have seen so many different rulings on this that I deliberately asked the TO before the tournament which is why they were positioned that way.

Like i have said, i dont care how its ruled, just so I know before I make my list and play the game.

The ruling for this tournament was Base=Model for all purposes except LOS. to me that seems very simple and easy to play by. I know a lot of people do not agree, hopefully GW will make something official about this.

It doesnt matter if its right or wrong which was my point :p Judges from my opinion are those least qualified to argue one way or another.. which is sad and a detriment to tournaments

And they would be wrong, since the rules say to ignore flight bases for everything except assaulting the vehicle.

Yeah and that just furthers the point about the 5th ed skimmer rules making no sense.. how are you supposed to assault the base exactly? The assault rules clearing say you cant move through a model.. the base is inside the model, therefore good luck assaulting it

The absurdity of skimmer rules leads to these kind of issues

Im just saying I understand why judges rule against the actual rule.. They dont know what it is half the time

It would be interesting to see what the GW internal standards are for appointing judges. I remember from my swimming days that there was a whole hierarchy of training courses for officials at swim meets, to the point that there was a couple of people you'd see at every swim meet running the show because they were the only people with enough qualifications to be the Meet Marshal and so on. Of course, swimming isn't the niche hobby that GW tournaments are, but you'd think it would be easier to set up and run a system of qualifications given the smaller scale.

Kirasu wrote:Yeah and that just furthers the point about the 5th ed skimmer rules making no sense.. how are you supposed to assault the base exactly? The assault rules clearing say you cant move through a model.. the base is inside the model, therefore good luck assaulting it

How is the base 'inside' the model?

In the case of the Valk/Vendetta, the base is a good 5 or 6 inches beneath the model. There's very few models in the game that wouldn't be able to move into contact with the base without touching the skimmer's hull.


It does lead to problems with some skimmers on shorter flight stems, since the hull will sometimes hang over the base, making it difficult to get into base contact from some directions (or at all in the case of Monoliths with flight bases)... and since you can't get the attacker's base in contact with the skimmer's hull either you technically would have a problem. Most players from my experience just move the model so that it is touching the skimmer and call it good enough.

Im just saying I understand why judges rule against the actual rule.. They dont know what it is half the time

And sometimes, as in this case apparently, they are simply ruling in favour of what they think makes the most sense and allows the game to function in a reasonable manner.

I agree.. yet the problem still remains..

You go to two different tournaments and get wildly different game shifting rulings heh.. (ex. the deff rolla ruling another 'ard boyz)

I hope before the next round of GTs GW seriously takes a look at the adepticon FAQ or does something to address this..

You can assault either the base or the hull of a skimmer.

The Valkyrie needs careful discussion with your opponent on exactly how you both expect it to work, as the enormously tall flying stand creates a large amount of issues. While they can be resolved by the strictest RAW reading in some cases, in many cases those resolutions are not intuitive and it is common to see people playing different ways.

toxic_wisdom wrote:First thing I was wondering is how can a Valkyrie ( Vendetta ) as a transport allow a unit to disembark 2" from it ( as nearly six inches above the tabletop ) and at the same time remain more than 1" above a model like a Dreadnought or Land Speeder on a flight stand ?

Second thing, and more rule specific, is the entry in the rulebook for Moving Skimmers ( page 71 ) "...skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either..."

Clearly one Vendetta is on top of the other.

I actually agree with this and not with Gwar for the first time. To me, 'on top' means that any part of the model is on top of another part of the model. I think about it in real terms: How could 2 flyers be on top of each other, even if they are hovering? I definitely squirmed at the thought of enemy models being on top of others. If vendetta's had regular flight bases this wouldn't have been possible, and since those are the only models that have those bases I don't think it's reasonable to put them on top of each other... Regardless of the actual call in this case, I've had a few cases like this in the recent past as well.

Consider a Daemon Prince with large wings. Or even a space marine with an ominously pointing hand. Are enemies allowed to come within 1 inch of his pointy finger? of course they are. You measure to the base. Similarly the Daemon is allowed to move his wings over friendly/enemy models, simply because they are not a real representation of where the daemon is.

Models are considered to occupy the space above their base (paraphrased from pg11). A skimmer vehicle is also considered to occupy the physical space its hull occupies. However, a skimmer does NOT occupy the area below its hull.

Following this, the position of the Valkyrie for movement purposes is determined purely on where its base is, with the obvious restriction that the hull must be able to physically be above the base. Ergo, if you can put the two Valk's next to each other, without their bases overlapping, it is a legal placement.

We used the below as a homemade errata/faq on the valk. As it applies to the question at hand, I thought I would share. As it is the quickest, easiest and applies the most common sense. (To us anyway) Feel free to propose this "Unofficial" explanation to your opponent before the game. Let them read it over and work from their. Remember UNOFFICIAL in any way shape or form. This is just what our gaming group uses.

Base equals model for, assault, disembarking and movement. Basically base = model for all purposes except line of site.

How to deal with a few potential issues with the current rules.

If the model became immobilized, take the model off the base and place it on the table and the whole model, including wings and tail section is now able to be assaulted. This gives advantages to both sides and keeps the model acting like other 40k vehicles with out needing to change any current rules.

A immobilized valk can still disembark its troops with all the normal restrictions. Units disembarking, disembark from the hull section. Use the doors as disembark points as per normal rules. Ignore wings, cockpit and tail section for purposes of disembarking. Units cannot "climb" on wings or tail section, until the valk had been destroyed. As per normal rules. Treat as a normal wreak as detailed in the main rule book. If a enemy unit wishes to assault the disembarked unit, ignore the wings and tail section for purposes of passing with in one inch of an enemy model, still cannot "climb" over the vehicle however. This prohibits opponents from using the valk as an invisible force field or forcing a unit to assault the valk that does not wish to.

2 valks can touch each other, much like 2 tanks so long as their bases were not overlapping (that's impossible, or stupid hard to do with the new bases.) Nor could the model end its turn with its base within 1 inch of an opponents model, as per current rules, ignoring the actual model for purposes of contacting other models, yes even enemy models, keeping with base = model.

If the valk gets immobilized over enemy models it would land in the closest possible area to its current location with out being with in 1 inch of an enemy model, this could cause shifting of the original placement. The hull should easily fit with the space given by the above rule or 1' away from the base, wings might cause problems. If the wings or tail section contacts enemy models. Move the model (Valk not opponents models) to the minimum safe distance so it lays on the table using the current drop pod rule for reference. Keeping facing as close to its original as possible. If both opponents agree to the result then done, using current rules as is by utilizing the drop pod rule. If both opponents cannot agree on the placement. It will default to remain attached to flight base, be immobile, and play as is with the exception that all guns from vehicle are considered to be shooting threw terrain, use true line of site but apply a 4+ cover to all models, including vehicles hit by the valk. Valk keeps its commanding view of the battlefield but suffers from less effective shots. If it is potentially game changing in a sanctioned tournament have the organizer place the model. This should only happen if players cannot reach any compromise. Once all enemy modles are clear of the area place the model on the table and revert to normal rules.


In short, base = model except for line of site. Is it perfect? No. In our neck of the woods it is the easiest and fastest way to play. With out giving either side a glaring advantage. This is not chess, some rules require compromise if a grey area exists. Even in ard boys comprise can be achieved quickly and easily. It is however not RAW tight. But on dakka what really is?

Trasvi wrote:Consider a Daemon Prince with large wings. Or even a space marine with an ominously pointing hand. Are enemies allowed to come within 1 inch of his pointy finger? of course they are. You measure to the base. Similarly the Daemon is allowed to move his wings over friendly/enemy models, simply because they are not a real representation of where the daemon is.

Models are considered to occupy the space above their base (paraphrased from pg11). A skimmer vehicle is also considered to occupy the physical space its hull occupies. However, a skimmer does NOT occupy the area below its hull.

Following this, the position of the Valkyrie for movement purposes is determined purely on where its base is, with the obvious restriction that the hull must be able to physically be above the base. Ergo, if you can put the two Valk's next to each other, without their bases overlapping, it is a legal placement.

My only problem with that is if you got the right bases you could do all kinds of cheesy things with the valks, as if they didn't have all the advantages already anyways. Use a tall one and a short one so that you can fly them in tandem practically spooning and then cover half an enemy unit at the end of move? I really do see your point but it seems like a slippery slope and would lead to a lot more people using other bases that are technically legal but dubious at best. It just makes me cringe just a little seeing things that tread that close to the rules. See what I mean?

A model must be used with the base it is supplied with. Pg11 (i think?). That means you must use your 6 inch flight stands for both Valkyries.

As I said before, many strict applications of RAW are not particularly intuitive, so its a good idea to discuss the rules pertaining to Valkyries before you begin. On the other hand, i think this isn't particularly hard to grasp and should be handled in exactly the same way as any other model that has parts sticking out over the base.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:My only problem with that is if you got the right bases you could do all kinds of cheesy things with the valks, as if they didn't have all the advantages already anyways. Use a tall one and a short one so that you can fly them in tandem practically spooning and then cover half an enemy unit at the end of move? I really do see your point but it seems like a slippery slope and would lead to a lot more people using other bases that are technically legal but dubious at best. It just makes me cringe just a little seeing things that tread that close to the rules. See what I mean?

But now you are basing your stance on one rule around another action which the rules already say is not allowed. You use a model on the base it came with, so you shouldn't even be considering what "could" happen if someone re-bases a model and how that leaves something open to exploitation.

I think it is legit, but I'm not much of a 40k player anymore (I was at the WHFB tourney Showcase was running that day).

Basically, if he was 1" away from the other models, then I think he's fine.

I think the rules are very fuzzy here, and due to the extreme size and height of the Valk model, playing it any other way becomes crazy - and then you start seeing people mod their Valks to have short tails and wings, which look stupid, but work for better game play advantages.

Personally I'd say play it the way the TO ruled, but that's more from a practical standpoint rather than pure RAW since as I said before I'm no longer a 40k player.

Yes, the Valk and Vetta are unusual cases as there's no prior model that came close in terms of size and height. The Skimmer rules are from a time when skimmers were less than a model's height off the table, meaning the skimmer couldn't have models under it. Our group have come up with what is hopefully a fairly simple solution, specifically that for all intents and purposes, the Valk/Vetta has no wings or tail with the exception that wing mounted weapons are still measured and LoSed from the wing. Secondly, models wishing to move around in flyer are restricted only by the base, and that if they assault the Valk/Vetta, they assault the base only.

Simply, the Valkyrie has two states - Move/Assault state, and Shooting state. For Move and Assault purposes, the Valkyrie only exists as a base on the ground. For shooting purposes, you can only shoot at the hull and cockpit.

wouldn't it be simplest if valkyries simply followed the rules like any other skimmer?

IE: they can't disembark (absent elevated terrain, or grav-chute insertion), and you measure everything to the hull.

willydstyle wrote:wouldn't it be simplest if valkyries simply followed the rules like any other skimmer?

IE: they can't disembark (absent elevated terrain, or grav-chute insertion), and you measure everything to the hull.

It would, but sadly people just hate playing by the rules it seems

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:wouldn't it be simplest if valkyries simply followed the rules like any other skimmer?

IE: they can't disembark (absent elevated terrain, or grav-chute insertion), and you measure everything to the hull.

It would, but sadly people just hate playing by the rules it seems

I tend to find people prefer to enjoy themselves. And Valkyries have a tendency to cause all sorts of misery if you think to hard about them.

Cheao tactit. 'nuff said. I'm not sure it IS legal, but it certainly IS cheap.

willydstyle wrote:wouldn't it be simplest if valkyries simply followed the rules like any other skimmer?

IE: they can't disembark (absent elevated terrain, or grav-chute insertion), and you measure everything to the hull.

I couldn't have said it better!

That's like saying you can stack Soul Grinders and such on top of each other becuase their legs don't count.

That really depends on how you define 'on top'

One Vendetta is clearly partially above the other... but to me, one of them being 'on top' of the other would require one to be physically sitting on the other.

My mug is sitting on top of the desk, while the ceiling is merely above it, not on top of it.

Being above another model is fine. Otherwise you would never be able to have models on different levels in ruins.

This is really the crux of the matter. "On top of" is fairly vague since it can be interpreted, as Insaniak says, to be either above or physically resting upon.

I would personally allow this situation because then you end up a silly double standard. Skimmers that can't end their movement above other models, but other models are perfectly free to end their movement beneath a skimmer. It also makes the Valkyrie (even more) difficult to use in most situations.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That's like saying you can stack Soul Grinders and such on top of each other becuase their legs don't count.

Well, you cannot stack them because the model has to be touching the table. You can place them so the legs overlap just fine, just like you are doing with the valks.

i hope this is all moot and quickly resolved in the faq. otherwise, my nightmare will come true. people will start modeling and converting their entire armies to maximize the loopholes in the rules. oh yeah, they're already doing that. i actually met a dude that was collecting crouching firewarriors because he interpreted the los rules as if you can't see me, you can't shoot me (which is true), but he could still shoot you. i think i'll start converting tanks with twenty inch tall converted armor plates that extend 24 inches from both sides, acting as a massive system of mobile walls that bestow 4+ cover saves to my advancing infantry, and blocking los to my indirect batteries. tank-walls. that's the future.

gothmog wrote:i hope this is all moot and quickly resolved in the faq. otherwise, my nightmare will come true. people will start modeling and converting their entire armies to maximize the loopholes in the rules. oh yeah, they're already doing that. i actually met a dude that was collecting crouching firewarriors because he interpreted the los rules as if you can't see me, you can't shoot me (which is true), but he could still shoot you. i think i'll start converting tanks with twenty inch tall converted armor plates that extend 24 inches from both sides, acting as a massive system of mobile walls that bestow 4+ cover saves to my advancing infantry, and blocking los to my indirect batteries. tank-walls. that's the future.

Modelling for advantage has been around since Before Warhammer 40k even existed

gothmog wrote:i actually met a dude that was collecting crouching firewarriors

Crab People

Taste like crab...


Also, I would not have allowed that move at my 'ard boyz tournament. So no, that is not a legal move.

RxGhost wrote:Taste like crab...


Also, I would not have allowed that move at my 'ard boyz tournament. So no, that is not a legal move.

Thanks for chiming in collective consciousness of GW which is all knowing.

Drunkspleen wrote:Thanks for chiming in collective consciousness of GW which is all knowing.

You Called?

This post has been edited by the Modquisition to avoid a flameout.

People lets all remember rule #1: Be polite. over the top sarcasm or direct unwarranted attacks of other posters is not permitted. Lets try to maintain an air of decorum shall we?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Crab People.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What? I thought it was funny...come on? Internether regions? That stuff is gold!

I am confused what the issue is here. The Valks are >1" away from enemy models and I can't find a rule saying that models cannot be over other models.
One Valk is over the other, it is not on top of it. Even if it was, is there a rule saying you can't move under it? Thats the only way I can see it having an affect on gameplay.

Pg. 71: "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models but they cannot end thier move on top of either."

I see multiple violations of that rule in that photo.

RxGhost wrote:Pg. 71: "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models but they cannot end thier move on top of either."

I see multiple violations of that rule in that photo.

It is not on top of any model, it is above another model. Big Difference. On Top Implies Contact.

You can't end your move on top of another model. That is linked to the rule that you must end the move on the table. Skimmers...skim. Over stuff. But when the movement phase ends, you must be at your minimum hover (flight stem height), with the base sitting on the table.

You can't hold it in the air, and you can't set it down physically on another model. Pieces of the model can certainly be overhead of an enemy, so long as those pieces are one inch minimum away.

That is by the current RAW. You can stack up and leapfrog like the photo shows by RAW, but you can't disembark except to a piece of high terrain, contest flat objectives on the ground, etc. Any house rule to allow that stuff should encompass some way of treating Valkyries like all of others skimmers where this type of thing is very rarely possible.

I ran 7 Vendettas at our local Ard Boyz this weekend. When my opponeent asked how he was supposed to assault them, I refered them to page 71 of the main rule book. If he got a model within the perimeter of any part of the vehicle, he could assualt it. That allowed me to embark and disembark normally. It also prevented him from assualting under the vehicle to the get to the squad behind it unless he assulted the vehicle as well. That wasn't a big deal for him either.

Until there is a FAQ for the Valkyrie/Vendetta I am at the whim of the tournament organizer how they want the model played.

If the organizer says they will rule that I can only disembark via rapid insertion AND cannot pick up my units that's fine. I would take my armoured company Guard.

I have modified my Vendetta flying bases' height so I can stagger the squadron heights. This lowers the board foot print of the squadron in the hopes that GW will treat the model like the Adepticon FAQ for the drop pod, ignoring the wings and tail.

I will say playing this list is one of the most complicated because of the size of of the model its new base and the size of a three model squadron. GW didn't forsee this one coming from the wording on vehicle squadrons. PG 63 of the main rule book; "some small vehicles, examples, operate in units of more than one vehicle, known as squadrons. The Valkyrie is not a small model by any stretch of the imagination.

I just hope they get this all fixed before the release of Dark Eldar. I forsee a lot of issue with Raider squadron stacking.

RxGhost wrote:Pg. 71: "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models but they cannot end thier move on top of either."

I see multiple violations of that rule in that photo.

I don't see the Valks on top of any models. And it is not left hovering, but the base is indeed on the table satisfying the 2nd part of that rule quoted as well.

AdeptArtificer wrote: If he got a model within the perimeter of any part of the vehicle, he could assualt it.

That's not what it says on page 71, though. It says you can assault it by moving into contact with either the vehicle or the flight base.

Not even sure what you mean by 'perimeter of the vehicle' ... I'm assuming that you're talking about the 2D outline of the vehicle on the table. Which isn't referenced by the rules at all.

That allowed me to embark and disembark normally.

Doesn't actually follow.

Models can assault the vehicle by moving into contact with the base. That has nothing to do with the rules for embarking and disembarking. There are no rules in the core rules fo 40K that allow a squad to disembark or embark at ground level from a Valk on the big flight base.

It also prevented him from assualting under the vehicle to the get to the squad behind it unless he assulted the vehicle as well.

It also doesn't do that. So long as he doesn't move within 1" of the vehicle (measured to the hull, since the base is only considered when assaulting the vehicle) he can move underneath it all he likes.


If the Tournament organiser wants to add rules for the Valk, that's fine (and would certainly be useful to anyone wanting to use them in the manner in which was probably intended)... but the normal 40K rules simply don't allow them to function as you've described.

As you can see he-yah, at points 1, 2 and 3, we have friendly units overlappin' friendlies. That dreadnought is gettin' some fast tail if you get mah drift. And he-yah at points 4 and 5, we see opposing models overlappin' enemies. Now, I can't say 100% because I wasn't there and the angle of this picture may be unfavorable for detectin' work, but I can say that red dreanought did fire the shot that took out president Kennedy*.



* Too soon?

RxGhost wrote:As you can see he-yah, at points 1, 2 and 3, we have friendly units overlappin' friendlies. That dreadnought is gettin' some fast tail if you get mah drift. And he-yah at points 4 and 5, we see opposing models overlappin' enemies.

Which, as has been pointed out, isn't a problem since the rules only forbid being on top of other models, not being over them.

If the Valk was sitting on the dreadnought, that would be a problem.

How is being over them not being on top? That sounds like a semantic argument with no purpose but to squeeze a few extra drops of cheese out of a poor Vendetta, because, you know, they're the real victims here.

RxGhost wrote:How is being over them not being on top?

Already explained earlier. They're two different things.

My coffee cup is on top of the desk. The ceiling is above the desk.

The ceiling is not on top of the desk, as it's not actually sitting on it.



Not just purposeless semantics, because as has also been mentioned, counting 'above' and 'on top' as the same thing prevents models from being on different levels in ruins. That's even assuming that semantics can be purposeless when you're discussing the literal meaning of a given piece of text...

Your coffee cup does not have a gaming rules system that determines how it may or may not be moved underneath your ceiling.

Seriously, I'm not looking at these rules very hard and the message is very clear. You cannot end your turn with the hull of the Valkyrie above (or on top of) another unit, friendly or not.

Now this may not sit well with people who want to flood the board with giant flying monstrosities and still be able to move wherever they want; but them's the breaks. I wish my guys were invisible so no one can draw line of sight to them.

If you and another player want to agree to do something else, that's awesome, that's in the rule book too! Do whatever you do to have fun.

Also, the miniatures in your gallerly look very nice.

My examples were what was played at the tournament. In a tournament setting it is more important to know how you are going to be ruled than what the rules actually say. Sad but true.

Now if I were playing you in a friendly game then my guys would only be able to deploy via rapid insertion or onto an appropiate height piece of terrain. No problem or gripe from me on that either. I prefer to play by the rules but when going to a tournament I play how I am going to be judged.

RxGhost wrote:Your coffee cup does not have a gaming rules system that determines how it may or may not be moved underneath your ceiling.

Seriously, I'm not looking at these rules very hard and the message is very clear. You cannot end your turn with the hull of the Valkyrie above (or on top of) another unit, friendly or not.

Now this may not sit well with people who want to flood the board with giant flying monstrosities and still be able to move wherever they want; but them's the breaks. I wish my guys were invisible so no one can draw line of sight to them.

If you and another player want to agree to do something else, that's awesome, that's in the rule book too! Do whatever you do to have fun.

Also, the miniatures in your gallerly look very nice.

So are you also claiming you cannot end your move over another model in a ruin?

I was the person that had to deal with the situation.

There were two questions that had to be addressed. The first was overlap, the second was measuring the distance between models in a squadron for unit coherency. My decision was based on a couple of things, first and foremost giving the players a way to get on with the game, and second, a way to use the valkry model and not make it so difficult to move in the game that it never gets used again. The hull and cockpit portion of the vehicle is nearly the size of a landraider, the wings and tail making giving it a much bigger footprint. Looks cool on the table, takes up too much room for most 40k battle, IMHO.

I ruled that measurement to other units, and measurement for unit coherency would use the hull and cockpit, and treat the wings and tail as not there. Measure from weapon mounts for shooting, measure to the hull for shooting at it. Disembark from the base, assault to the base.

Both players were asked if this works, both said yes. If one had said no, I would have gone back to square one, and tried to figure something else out that worked for both people.

If GW comes up with a ruling by regionals, I'll gladly go with whatever they say. In the middle of turn 2, game 3, I had to make a ruling.

At the end of the day it comes down to the judge who probably doesnt even play 40k except for ultramarines every 2 years :p (no offense to anyone just every single judge ive seen in my area or store owner plays ultramarines and only once every edition)

I know you're not addressing this personally at me, and it's sad that your judges don't play much. Out of 7 40k armies I own, none are ultramarines, and I get in a minimum of a game a week, for the last 17 years.

RxGhost wrote:Your coffee cup does not have a gaming rules system that determines how it may or may not be moved underneath your ceiling.

It doesn't need one. Since the rulebook doesn't define the word 'above' or the phrase 'on top of' in specific 40K terms, we use their real world meanings.

Seriously, I'm not looking at these rules very hard and the message is very clear. You cannot end your turn with the hull of the Valkyrie above (or on top of) another unit, friendly or not.

Except that's not what the rules say.

That's like insisting that the Rapid Fire rules actually mean that a model firing 2 shots can actually fire 12 (or 13) inches ... because 12 and 13 are reasonably similar.

'Above' and 'on top' are not the same thing.


I notice you ignored the bit about Ruins...

Also, the miniatures in your gallerly look very nice.

Well thank you, kind sir...

I ignored the part with the ruins since the book is pretty clear on how units function inside of them; it seem unessesary to address.

Page #11 (Rulebook) - A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model.
Page #71 (Rulebook) - Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

To me, these mandates above are very simplistic and leave no ambiguity in terms of what they mean. It is what it is so to speak.

NotThisTime wrote:Page #11 (Rulebook) - A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model.

This prevents models from moving through spaces between other models that are physically too small for them.

It doesn't stop one model from being partially above another.

Some players take the view that the 'space occupied by another model' includes the volume of space above the model's base, to an infinite height. This view is not actually backed up by the rules.

Page #71 (Rulebook) - Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

Already answered.

To me, these mandates above are very simplistic and leave no ambiguity in terms of what they mean. It is what it is so to speak.

Indeed.

insaniak wrote:
Indeed.

Yet still, you persist?

I suspect you misunderstood...

I think that the rules very clearly back up my point of view. So yes, I persist when people question that point of view, or post something that I feel is clearly false without addressing the previous arguments that already addressed that particular point.

Odd, that's what I was going to say. I would say we are at an impasse, but since I am clearly right, that cannot be.

insaniak wrote:It doesn't stop one model from being partially above another.
Some players take the view that the 'space occupied by another model' includes the volume of space above the model's base, to an infinite height. This view is not actually backed up by the rules.

Page #11 (Rulebook) - A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model.
Ok, so I should take that as Skimmers hovering within the same space of another Skimmer doesn't apply here. I think I will have to disagree with you on that one. I may have not received an 'A' in physics class but that mandate on page #11 leaves no ambiguity.

Kindly provide a reference to where it states that the 'space occupied by another model' does not include the volume of space above the model's base, to an infinite height.

A page number would be dandy!
Thanks.

I would have waited an eternity for this. It's over, Prime.

RxGhost wrote:Odd, that's what I was going to say. I would say we are at an impasse, but since I am clearly right, that cannot be.

It's only an impasse if you actually address the opposing argument.

Please explain how a rule forbiding a model from being on top of another also forbids a model from being above another. Because, again, they're not the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NotThisTime wrote:Kindly provide a reference to where it states that the 'space occupied by another model' does not include the volume of space above the model's base, to an infinite height.

Kindly provide a reference to where it states that 'space occupied by another model' does not include the entire volume of space in the room in which you are playing, this forbidding models from ever moving anywhere?

The rulebook doesn't define 'the space occupied by another model'

We are therefore forced to use the actual meaning of the phrase.

In which case, 'the space occupied by a model' is the space occupied by the model. The space around the model is not occupied by the model. You can tell this by looking at that space, and noting that said space does not, in fact, contain any part of the model.

No U!

insaniak wrote:In which case, 'the space occupied by a model' is the space occupied by the model. The space around the model is not occupied by the model. You can tell this by looking at that space, and noting that said space does not, in fact, contain any part of the model.

Ok, so based on that fact, Skimmers don't really hover then! They just really stay stationary in mid air. That's like trying to say that 'air' doesn't move!

Priceless

Sorry, you've lost me.

I'm missing the connection between models hovering or not and models being physical objects.

NotThisTime wrote:
Kindly provide a reference to where it states that the 'space occupied by another model' does not include the volume of space above the model's base, to an infinite height.

A page number would be dandy!
Thanks.

I would point you at page 82 and 83, regarding moving within Ruins. There is absolutely nothing stating that units occupy an infinite cylinder up or down, nor is there anything that would exempt them from such a rule. That means that in order to stand within the ruins as illustrated on page 82, they would be violating the rule you're citing... if it existed.

Since 5th ed did away with the concept of the infinite cylinder, there are units within the rulebook positioned exactly in the way that you claim is illegal, and there is no reference or exemption stated anywhere to the interpretation that you are citing, I would lean towards the 'space occupied by another model' as being very simply defined as the space contained within the volume of the model and its base, and no further.

What this comes down to is looking at how the model will function in all phases of the game. Take for example the event that the Valk that was up front and on top of all those models is destroyed or immobilized. Once that happens the model comes crashing down on the table. When this happens what do you do with the models that are under the skimmer? There is nothing to indicate that they are moved away from it.

It seems clear to me that the Rule on page 71 relating to the fact that the skimmer cannot end its move on top of any other model (This includes above) so that things do not get complicated once the model is destroyed or immobilized.

Except that skimmers with a glued-on flight stand are specifically allowed within the rules to be left upon their stand when destroyed, representing that their anti grav unit is still operational.

Nothing in the rules requires a model to come 'crashing down' when destroyed.

Lets say for a moment that those stands were not glued on.

sourclams wrote:I would point you at page 82 and 83, regarding moving within Ruins. There is absolutely nothing stating that units occupy an infinite cylinder up or down, nor is there anything that would exempt them from such a rule. That means that in order to stand within the ruins as illustrated on page 82, they would be violating the rule you're citing... if it existed.

Since 5th ed did away with the concept of the infinite cylinder, there are units within the rulebook positioned exactly in the way that you claim is illegal, and there is no reference or exemption stated anywhere to the interpretation that you are citing, I would lean towards the 'space occupied by another model' as being very simply defined as the space contained within the volume of the model and its base, and no further.

Page #82 begins by stating implicitly that 'This section concentrates on Ruins'.

Somehow the rules for Skimmers I fear do not apply here.

Except I couldn't find your infinite cylinder rule under the Skimmer section either, so I had to go looking for it elsewhere. Point me at a page # and I'll check it out.

Lets say for a moment that those stands were not glued on.

Irrelevant. If gluing the stand on gives you advantage, then everyone glues their stands on to get the advantage.

bigtmac68 wrote: The ruling for this tournament was Base=Model for all purposes except LOS. to me that seems very simple and easy to play by. I know a lot of people do not agree, hopefully GW will make something official about this.

At 'ard Boyz, my opponent had forgotten his clear plastic land speeder bases at home. I told him that was very ok with me, just "throw dice and have fun". Then my template scattered JUST outside of his model and he insisted (after I declared it a miss) "Who cares. That's a hit. If I'd have remembered my bases you clearly would have hit." Of course I then failed to even glance, but... I thought it was classy.

sourclams wrote:Except I couldn't find your infinite cylinder rule under the Skimmer section either, so I had to go looking for it elsewhere. Point me at a page # and I'll check it out.

Please refer to the following:

Page #11 (Rulebook) - A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model.

Vendetta / Valkyrie - Fast, Skimmers

Page #71 (Rulebook) - Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

For the final time, these mandates above are very simplistic and leave no ambiguity in terms of what they mean. It is what it is.

To state otherwise is folly. And please remember we are not talking about Ruins here.

NotThisTime wrote:Page #11 (Rulebook) - A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model.

Repeating it won't suddenly change its meaning.

Not being able to move into the space occupied by another model does nothing more than stop you from moving into the space occupied by another model.

Nothing in that rule even remotely suggests that the space around or above the model is considered to be space occupied by the model. It is neither explicitly stated or vaguely hinted. The rule refers solely to the space actually occupied by the model.

Page #71 (Rulebook) - Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

Again, still doesn't mean what you want it to.

'On top of' and 'above' are not the same thing. They're two different, distinct positions.

'On top of' means 'physically sitting on'.
'Above' means 'situated higher'.

They're not freely interchangable.

For the final time, these mandates above are very simplistic and leave no ambiguity in terms of what they mean. It is what it is.

Then why do you keep insisting that they mean something different to what they actually say?

NotThisTime wrote:
For the final time, these mandates above are very simplistic and leave no ambiguity in terms of what they mean. It is what it is.

This phrase does not mean what you think it means.

Likewise I'm still not seeing this infinite cylinder you're referring to. Insisting that it exists isn't going to create it spontaneously.

NotThisTime, may I kindly suggest you go find a go dictionary and look up the meanings of 'on top' and 'above' before you continue your whining. Your continued mewling and refusal to do anything more than repeat the same phrases over and over again are starting to grate on peoples nerves. Either introduce evidence that on top is equal to above and that models take up an infinate space above their bases or concede.

Definition of "On Top Of"

From Dictionary.com

45. on top of,
a. over or upon.
b. in addition to; over and above.
c. close upon; following upon: Gale winds came on top of the floods.
d. in complete control: on top of the problem.

The fact that on top of contains "over" within its definition gives Not this Time's argument more weight than yours.

As for sourclams, you can't always assume that the base is guled on. most of the time this makes for highly inconvenient transport of models. So lets take into consideration the fact that 90% of all skimmers are not glued to their movement bases.

So please tell me what happens in the sutation that I previously mentioned?

Let's keep it civil, Norade. Click on the link to Rule #1 in my sig.

Negativemoney wrote:What this comes down to is looking at how the model will function in all phases of the game. Take for example the event that the Valk that was up front and on top of all those models is destroyed or immobilized. Once that happens the model comes crashing down on the table. When this happens what do you do with the models that are under the skimmer? There is nothing to indicate that they are moved away from it.

I was about to say that!


You have to follow the rules for skimmers and for vehicles.

The fact that the Vendetta model is tall, large, and unwieldy has no bearing on how it can be used.

People get the whole "occupy the area of its base" bit wrong very often. All it means is that you have to move around other model's bases, you can't pass over them. The model is considered to take up the entire volume of the base from the bottom to the top of the model.

None of that even matters for what the original question is. In the photo, pieces of the model that are outside the area of the base are overlapping in the vertical axis. Since none of the pieces being overlapped are in the area between the base and the hull, there is no problem with the "area of its base" rule (never mind that it can be argued that rule doesn't directly apply to skimmers in the first place). Moot point, since it isn't applying no matter what in this photo.

You are certainly allowed to overlap in the vertical axis as long as you maintain the one inch rule for enemy units. This is not an argument based on nothing saying you can't, it is an argument that the function of the game is that you may freely move in three dimensions across, up, and down the table, so long as you stay within the confines of the distance rules. You are allowed to do this by default, so no special instruction is needed.

Finally, the "can't stop on top of" rule in the context of the game and the rule sections it is detailing is telling you nothing more than you may not sit your model physically on another model. If you have not done that, you have complied with the rule.

Assuming no part of either Vendetta is one inch or closer to any of the enemy models (can't say for sure from the photo, but it doesn't look like it), then that is a legal place to sit.

Kaaihn wrote:
You are certainly allowed to overlap in the vertical axis as long as you maintain the one inch rule for enemy units. This is not an argument based on nothing saying you can't, it is an argument that the function of the game is that you may freely move in three dimensions across, up, and down the table, so long as you stay within the confines of the distance rules. You are allowed to do this by default, so no special instruction is needed.

This is the first problem that I have with your argument. Warhammer is a permissive rules set. What that means is that you must have permission to do something otherwise you cannot do it. There is nothing in the rules that allows any model to move in three dimensions apart from the rules listed in the ruins section of the rule book and even then you are restricted to only 3 dimensional movement in ruins. Even movement on hills is considered to be 2 dimensional as you do not need to take into account the vertical distance moved just the horizontal. also the rules specifically restrict the overlapping of models as detailed on page 71 of the rule book as well as on page 11 (both have been quoted numerous times).

Kaaihn wrote:Finally, the "can't stop on top of" rule in the context of the game and the rule sections it is detailing is telling you nothing more than you may not sit your model physically on another model. If you have not done that, you have complied with the rule.

As i have shown in a previous post "on top of" is another way of saying "over" in this case the words are interchangeable and as such even if the model is hovering over another model friendly or otherwise on top of another friendly model. You conclusion here is wrong as it is not consistent with the language that is being used.

BTW what is the bottom armor for a Vendetta?

Negativemoney wrote:Definition of "On Top Of"

From Dictionary.com

45. on top of,
a. over or upon.
b. in addition to; over and above.
c. close upon; following upon: Gale winds came on top of the floods.
d. in complete control: on top of the problem.

The fact that on top of contains "over" within its definition gives Not this Time's argument more weight than yours.

It does, which is inconvenient...

However, it leaves us with a phrase with multiple meanings, one of which (over) causes conflicts eleswhere in the rules, and one of which (upon) does not.

To my mind, the one which doesn't cause conflicts is more likely to be the better one to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:People get the whole "occupy the area of its base" bit wrong very often. All it means is that you have to move around other model's bases, you can't pass over them. The model is considered to take up the entire volume of the base from the bottom to the top of the model.

There is nothing in the rules suggesting that the model occupies the volume of space above its base.

It occupies the area of its base, not the volume of space above it.

It does so because we measure to and from the base, because that's the easiest reference point for measurement.

The model occupies no more space than it actually takes up on the board.

Ok, i'll revisit my view on this.



Take a look at the balrog (sorry, he's the only model I have with wings. Pretend he's a Daemon prince or winged tyrant)
Is he on top of the fire warrior? Looking from above, his wing definitely covers the fire warrior. But do you insist that his wings each make a 5 inch footprint on the board?


Or, in the third image. My kroot is actually over an inch away from the fire warrior. (lets pretend they're different armies). Is the kroot on top of the fire warrior?

The answer to all these questions is no.
The same applies in the Valkyrie situation. Except, instead of being Daemon wings, it is Valkyrie hull. It is above the models, but not on top of it.

As long as the base can be placed flat on the board 1 inch away from enemies, and the model can be physically placed in that position without touching or resting on another model, it is a legal placement.

So here is where we get into a sticky situation. You say that a model does not occupy the space above. I am in 1000% agreement with that statement. however this leaves out something even more important. That is what about the space beneath the model?

this is where the issue comes in. From what I can tell a model occupies all the space from its highest point to the point on the table where its base sits. This does not just include the base it self but the model itself (in the case of a vehicle). This is where I see that problem.

Because of the rule on page 71 that once a skimmer is destroyed or immobilized it is to be removed from its base (if not glued on which is 90% of the time) and placed on the table. if there are models under the vehicle then we have no rules on what happens to them.

So to go by what you said to me:

However, it leaves us with a phrase with multiple meanings, one of which (over) causes conflicts eleswhere in the rules, and one of which (upon) does not.

By not placing a model over another model we don't break any rules or wind up with any conflicts. this is the simplest way to solve the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi:

The one problem with you argument is that you forget that on page 71 there is this rule "The Skimmer's Base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting the skimmer..."

That indicates to me that your example is wrong. For non Vehicle models you must keep 1" from base to base. that is what the rules on page 11 indicate.

Negativemoney wrote:So here is where we get into a sticky situation. You say that a model does not occupy the space above. I am in 1000% agreement with that statement. however this leaves out something even more important. That is what about the space beneath the model?

It doesn't occupy that either.

The model occupies the space that it actually fills. The rules make no mention of it occupying anything else.

From what I can tell a model occupies all the space from its highest point to the point on the table where its base sits.

Based on which rule?

Because of the rule on page 71 that once a skimmer is destroyed or immobilized it is to be removed from its base (if not glued on which is 90% of the time) and placed on the table. if there are models under the vehicle then we have no rules on what happens to them.

The rules actually state that the base is removed 'if possible'

If it is impossible to place the vehicle on the table without the base, then removing the base is not possible.

By not placing a model over another model we don't break any rules or wind up with any conflicts. this is the simplest way to solve the problem.

But by ruling that way, you also restrict models from being above other models in Ruins.

ruins are a different story simply because each level has a floor associated with that. Models are not hovering. so in essence in a ruin you are placing models on different planes rather than on top of each other on the same plane.

Based on which rule?

A Skimmer may not end its movement on top of another model (page 71 not verbatim)

That is the rule that I am going by. A skimmer occupies all space below it when it is not moving it is as simple as that.

If it is impossible to place the vehicle on the table without the base, then removing the base is not possible.

the rule only mentions the physical removal of the base. Such as it being glued on. there is no mention of models under ths skimmer. Why you might ask? Because they can't be there.

Negativemoney wrote:ruins are a different story simply because each level has a floor associated with that.

That only makes them a different story if the rules actually make an exception.

Besides, a skimmer on the top level of a ruin is still hovering. Would you argue that it can't be placed there if there are models on the bottom floor?

A Skimmer may not end its movement on top of another model (page 71 not verbatim)

That is the rule that I am going by. A skimmer occupies all space below it when it is not moving it is as simple as that.

Sorry, but how do you get 'the model occupies x amount of space' from 'the model may not be placed on top of another model'?

The two statements are not even remotely related.

the rule only mentions the physical removal of the base.

The rule lists one particular example of why the base can not be removed. It in no way implies that this one example is the only reason that the base can not be removed. It simply says that the base is removed if possible.

Trasvi wrote:Ok, i'll revisit my view on this.



Take a look at the balrog (sorry, he's the only model I have with wings. Pretend he's a Daemon prince or winged tyrant)
Is he on top of the fire warrior? Looking from above, his wing definitely covers the fire warrior. But do you insist that his wings each make a 5 inch footprint on the board?


Or, in the third image. My kroot is actually over an inch away from the fire warrior. (lets pretend they're different armies). Is the kroot on top of the fire warrior?

The answer to all these questions is no.
The same applies in the Valkyrie situation. Except, instead of being Daemon wings, it is Valkyrie hull. It is above the models, but not on top of it.

As long as the base can be placed flat on the board 1 inch away from enemies, and the model can be physically placed in that position without touching or resting on another model, it is a legal placement.

The problem in this example is that none of these models are vehicles or skimmers. It is unimportant if there is overhang because we know that the only space they occupy is the base of the model, an infinite, invisible, cylindrical base that extends to the heavens. Quite simply, a vehicle (yeah, skimmers are those too) take up an amount of space equal to the hull, regardless of its base.

And what are those Balrog wings doing NOT on a Tyrant? Huh!?

Obviously the cylinder does NOT extend infinitely, otherwise these examples are not possible. it must extend only to the top of the model.

Additionally, there are no other rules for what space vehicles occupy. It Occupies the space of its base, and the physical boundaries of the model.

insaniak wrote:
That only makes them a different story if the rules actually make an exception.

Besides, a skimmer on the top level of a ruin is still hovering. Would you argue that it can't be placed there if there are models on the bottom floor?

They do actually make an exception: Page 82 the very first paragraph basically spells out that the rules in those section are for Ruins and nothing else.

If there is no enemy on the top floor (The plane that the skimmer exists on) than it is fine.

Sorry, but how do you get 'the model occupies x amount of space' from 'the model may not be placed on top of another model'?

The two statements are not even remotely related.

They are one in the same. If you can't place your model on top of other models how can you place models under it?

The rule lists one particular example of why the base can not be removed. It in no way implies that this one example is the only reason that the base can not be removed. It simply says that the base is removed if possible.

But the way it reads is that if you can physicaly remove the model from the base you must do so. weather or not you can lay it on the table is another story. The rules are only concerned about the removal of the base.

bigtmac68 wrote:I have seen so many different rulings on this that I deliberately asked the TO before the tournament which is why they were positioned that way.

Privately getting a ruling from the TO beforehand leaves a bad taste in my mouth. First since you are the only one to know a rule has been changed you can play it to your advantage with your opponent not knowing how it is done. Second it allows you and you alone to present your side of the debate to the judge in private with no counter argument present. You secure the ruling in your favor quite easily and when it comes up during a game the judge will dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary just because he has made the call already. I have seen judges say 'well you might be right, but I ruled this way already.' and leave it that way until the next tournament.

The propoer course of action would be for the judge to open the floor for discussion before making a ruling so both sides of the debate can be heard. Needless to say your GW rep is a wonderfully shoddy source of information for this ruling. Should will trump that with the Midwest director of sales or US regional manager?

Asking a TO ahead of time is recommended on this board continuously.

Anyone else that has asked about Valkries got the same answer.

The person making the decision in this case was the store owner (me), not the GW rep that was helping to run the tourney. Don't blame the GW rep.

Both players stated how they felt.

I made a decision, and if I'd see/heard anything that would have changed what I had said earlier, I would have ruled differently.

Both players were asked if the ruling worked for them.

Both said yes.

Both players are moving on to the regionals.

......................................................................................

I dont think you can put models on top of each other because:

1.) BRB says models cannot end move ontop of each other or in the overlapping space. The hull of the model may count for assaults/shooting or the base but the model is the model and they are overlapping and in each others space.

2.) blast weapons. Blast weapons represent a 3-D explosion but when you have models on top of each other then you fire a blast weapon at one weird things that have no rules in the current edition come up because the blast template is a 2-D template not designed to take into account models stacking ontop of each other or being in each others space since the rules are against that. Its better not to allow it.

Negativemoney wrote:This is the first problem that I have with your argument. Warhammer is a permissive rules set. What that means is that you must have permission to do something otherwise you cannot do it. There is nothing in the rules that allows any model to move in three dimensions apart from the rules listed in the ruins section of the rule book and even then you are restricted to only 3 dimensional movement in ruins. Even movement on hills is considered to be 2 dimensional as you do not need to take into account the vertical distance moved just the horizontal. also the rules specifically restrict the overlapping of models as detailed on page 71 of the rule book as well as on page 11 (both have been quoted numerous times).

Well, here's the problem.

You believe 40K is inherently a 2D game while I believe it is inherently a 3D game. There will be no agreement in this case, it simply won't be possible. I'm right in a 3D system, you are right in a 2D system.

Ask GW how their game works. Ask them if you measure horizontally to move up a hill, or if you would measure diagonally using the incline angle of the hill as your measuring angle. You will move a different amount of distance depending which method you use, so it is not a minor issue. It effects many other parts of the game, such as this Vendetta question. Base your answer on this Vendetta situation on theirs is my recommendation.

so what happens if you fire a large blast template at a skimmer "over" another skimmer and the template looking down covers both with the central hole.

Can I move an infantry unit beneath a skimmer thats friendly so that I can ignore low strength blast templates, flamer templates?

Can I move a infantry unit beneath a enemy skimmer?

mikhaila wrote:Both players are moving on to the regionals.

Unfortunately, the outcome of that game against Troy knocked me out of the top 3 so I will not be going onto the regionals.

I may not have been 110% onboard with the ruling but the decision was made and we simply move on.

Everything was resolved amicably and I couldn't ask for better opponents. All in all, it was a great event!

blaktoof wrote:so what happens if you fire a large blast template at a skimmer "over" another skimmer and the template looking down covers both with the central hole.

Can I move an infantry unit beneath a skimmer thats friendly so that I can ignore low strength blast templates, flamer templates?

Can I move a infantry unit beneath a enemy skimmer?

For how we played it at this tournament (ignore wings, tail, count hull for overlap and measuring) 1) You can't overlap hulls, so won't have one skimmer over another. 2) friendlies can't hide under a skimmer hull 3) no

Notice that in the pictures he took, it's the wings/tail that overlap, not hulls.

Just like what happens when you shoot guys in a building blak. You state which unit you are going for and that is the "level" the shot takes place at. Ergo you only hit the highest vehicle and you wouldn't hit the guys beneath the vehicle. And yes if the enemy skimmer is over 1" above the top of your model then you can move it under and enemy skimmer as long as you do not get within 1" of the base of the model.

We play it like the tournament organize ruled it. At least that is how it is played in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. As far as I've seen anyway.

NotThisTime wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Both players are moving on to the regionals.

Unfortunately, the outcome of that game against Troy knocked me out of the top 3 so I will not be going onto the regionals.

I may not have been 110% onboard with the ruling but the decision was made and we simply move on.

Everything was resolved amicably and I couldn't ask for better opponents. All in all, it was a great event!

My bad memory then, sorry, I thought you were moving on. Still on lack of sleep from that weekend. So I can see how it could have affected you. I'll let you know if anyone drops though.

I believe that a skimmer cannot end its movement on, or above, another model. I realize that there is some reasonable contention and I can't make it an absolute declaration. But taken in context of the entire rule, it is what seems right.

That does not, however, mean that the model 'extends' to the table. Nor does it mean that it occupies the space below the hull. It just means it is an added restriction to a skimmer, it cannot end its move on or above another model. Other models, however, are free to end their moves below the skimmer, since they do not have a similar restriction.


Area is 2 dimensional, space is 3 dimensional. The model occupies the area of the base, it does not occupy the space above the base.

coredump wrote:
That does not, however, mean that the model 'extends' to the table. Nor does it mean that it occupies the space below the hull. It just means it is an added restriction to a skimmer, it cannot end its move on or above another model. Other models, however, are free to end their moves below the skimmer, since they do not have a similar restriction.

That is assuming that movement ends once you let go of the model. I would say movement ends when the movement phase ends.

RxGhost wrote:
The problem in this example is that none of these models are vehicles or skimmers. It is unimportant if there is overhang because we know that the only space they occupy is the base of the model, an infinite, invisible, cylindrical base that extends to the heavens. Quite simply, a vehicle (yeah, skimmers are those too) take up an amount of space equal to the hull, regardless of its base.

I would love to play it like that, that would mean that my Valks couldn't be assaulted since enemy models wouldn't be able to get within 1" of the base or hull without crossing this invisible barrier!

I would gladly give up the abilitty to embark troops, contest objectives, etc, if this was the case!

PhantomViper wrote:

RxGhost wrote:
The problem in this example is that none of these models are vehicles or skimmers. It is unimportant if there is overhang because we know that the only space they occupy is the base of the model, an infinite, invisible, cylindrical base that extends to the heavens. Quite simply, a vehicle (yeah, skimmers are those too) take up an amount of space equal to the hull, regardless of its base.

I would love to play it like that, that would mean that my Valks couldn't be assaulted since enemy models wouldn't be able to get within 1" of the base or hull without crossing this invisible barrier!

I would gladly give up the abilitty to embark troops, contest objectives, etc, if this was the case!

There is no invisible curtain from the hull down to the ground. The open area underneath the hull and not over the base of a skimmer is freely open area for others to move through. Think of a Valkyrie kind of like a T, not a square.

Kaaihn wrote:
There is no invisible curtain from the hull down to the ground. The open area underneath the hull and not over the base of a skimmer is freely open area for others to move through. Think of a Valkyrie kind of like a T, not a square.

I know there isn't, I was just saying how it would play it if the rule would somehow be how RxGhost and NotThisTime are saying it should be (i.e. the vehicle ocuppies an amount of space equal to a cilinder extending in both vertical directions from the hull and into infinity).

If you deep strike on top of another unit it is a mishap. I don't even see why there is any discussion.

Don't know if this has come up yet, but...

I could see that these vehicles might be flying at different heights - in which case, overlap is not a big deal. 40K doesn't care what altitude skimmers fly at, so I could see a judge allowing the overlap.

As for me, I think it is silly. Because if I wanted to get into base-to-base with it (ie a charge) am I really going to go to the bother of getting models UNDER the wings in order to attack? And if that's the way it was played, you'd have to take the skimmer off the table every time this happened - come on.

I play Valks, easiest way to do it it measure your shooting from the mounts, like any other vehicle, and measure all incoming shots, movement, and assualt from the base. Other then grouping them closer together their is no real benifit to how they are stacked, and yes this model makes life annoying, beautiful to look at but issues like this, plus trying to pack it without damage make life more interesting then i like.

doubled wrote:I play Valks, easiest way to do it it measure your shooting from the mounts, like any other vehicle, and measure all incoming shots, movement, and assualt from the base. Other then grouping them closer together their is no real benifit to how they are stacked, and yes this model makes life annoying, beautiful to look at but issues like this, plus trying to pack it without damage make life more interesting then i like.

I hear you, man. I am looking at $250 for a Battle foam carrier for my 8 Vendettas I don't even know if there will be space for the troops.

Well the valk/vend is now a skimmer not a flyer so simple question.

Can all skimmers do this? If you replaced the models shown in pic with a waveserpent/land speeder/devilfish/etc would the argument be the same?

If it is ruled the no model can be under the wings of a Vendetta/Valkyrie then you can make a powerful wall in front of your troops. If you take a few models and have their wingtips an inch away from each other by virtue to turning them you can make it so an enemy charging at the middle would be forced to funnel all the way around to get to your forces as well mas making your skimmers nearly completely unassailable.

Is this really how people would prefer to see them played? Also if a model takes up space down then that would also mean the part containing the access point would as well so you could still deploy and embark as normal as well as creat an untouchable wall of scoring.

This thread just shows what length some people will go to. :(

The easiest way to say it is that they put a flyer in with skimmer rules. There will be no correct answer until its faq'ed. One of two things needs to happen. Include a skimmer base thats low to the ground and allows for current rules to be used or use 2" deployment from the base. Ignore the wings and fusilage for purposes of models under the vendetta and only consider them for purposes of enemy fire stirking the vendetta. That way nothing is "under" this massive model but you don't lose out on your chance to strike it.

Negativemoney wrote:They do actually make an exception: Page 82 the very first paragraph basically spells out that the rules in those section are for Ruins and nothing else.

You're still missing the point. Where in those rules does it specifically allow models in Ruins to be above other models?

If it's not allowed normally, and the Ruins rules don't change the normal rules, then it's still not allowed in Ruins.

insaniak wrote:Sorry, but how do you get 'the model occupies x amount of space' from 'the model may not be placed on top of another model'?
The two statements are not even remotely related.

They are one in the same. If you can't place your model on top of other models how can you place models under it?

Not only are 'above' and 'below' not the same thing, what you just said still doesn't explain why you think that occupying a given space has anything to do with being on top of something.

But the way it reads is that if you can physicaly remove the model from the base you must do so.

That might be the way you read it, but it's not what it actually says.

All it says is that the base must be removed if possible. It doesn't specify 'physically possible'... just 'possible'... So that would include rules-based removal problems just as much as physical problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:If you deep strike on top of another unit it is a mishap. I don't even see why there is any discussion.

There's a discussion because we're not talking about models Deep Striking on top of other models. We're talking about parts of one model being above other models, which is an altogether different situation.



Just something else to consider, sparked by the mention of Deep Striking, though:
I would be fairly confident that the rule prohibiting you from Deep Striking onto other models is there simply because it would be physically impossible to place the models.

Likewise, the rule that tells us that skimmers can't end their move on top of other models is (in my opinion) there to stop you from trying to balance your skimmer on top of a tank, or from having to figure out where the troops go if they're standing where you want the skimmer. Rather than the models moving out of the way, you have to put the skimmer somewhere else.

Placing a Valkyrie so that its tail is hanging above other models causes no placement conflicts. You don't have to move anything out of the way to do it. So there's no physical reason not to do so.

For what that's worth.

In the event that I fire a Blast weapon and I pleace the center of the template over a Dreadnaught that happens to be under the wings of one vendetta and under the tail of a second vendetta; Do I hit all 3 vehicles in that case?

That would depend on whether or not you're counting the wings and tail as part of the Vendetta's hull.

If you are, and if those parts are under the Blast marker (Blast weapons don't use a template, they use a Blast marker. Template weapons use Templates ) then yes, all three vehicles would be hit.

If you aren't counting those parts as a part of the hull, or the marker isn't over those vehicles, then no, they're not hit.

Only vehicles with their hull at least partially under the marker are hit by Blasts.

I'm also curious as to exactly what might occur if a model was under the wings of a valkyrie when it was immobilised. For me, the 'removed if possible' applies only really to the case where the base is glued on. If a model is under the Valk, it is still possible to remove the base, just not set the model on the table.
Hmm.
Good job GW.

Trasvi wrote: If a model is under the Valk, it is still possible to remove the base, just not set the model on the table.

Being unable to set the model on the table makes it impossible to remove the base, since the rules don't give you anything else to do with it. The model has to be sitting on the table. If the only way to sit it on the table is to leave the base on, then that is the only option you have short of creating a house rule to deal with it.

As a thought, though... the 'unable to place the destroyed vehicle on the table because of other models' isn't really exclusive to the Valk. You would potentially have the same problem with a vehicle destroyed by an assaulting enemy if your crater terrain has larger dimensions that the original vehicle. Make of that what you will.

Ive been following this discussion with interest and something occurred to me- if you ignore the wings for LOS and targeting pruposes, but still measure firing from the weapons mount, it is entirely conceivable that a Valk/Vend could remain stationary behind a building that blocked the central portion of the model, and still fire it's weapons without being targetable itself.

This seems silly and not just a little broken.

The same is true of quite a few vehicles. Most tanks with sponsons, for starters.

After reading the thread, I don't see any RAW reason to think that the skimmers occupy the space beneath them.

When I started playing I wondered about moving beneath skimmers but I have never seen a rule against it. Using the rest of the movement rules it seems possible and there is no rule to prevent this AFAIK.

The talk about this invisible cylinder is not based in any way, shape or form on 5th edition rules as far as I can tell.

I would say by RAW the wings and tail on the valk are part as their hull as much as any other part. I've only played a couple friendly games with opponents using the model. I can't insist enough that people work everything out with their opponent beforehand (or your TO).

The valk just works very strangely by RAW: no disembarking or contesting @ ground level, great LOS to the field, dodging melta.

@insaniak

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a tank that can poke out its guns the way a valk can under the "wings don't count" approach. A LRuss' sponsons might be able to poke out with a very limited LOS, a LRaider, probably not, an Annihilator... possibly, but, again, with a truncated LOS. And all of those tanks' sponsons are mounted directly to the hull.

I think the rules re: vehicle hulls is to prevent modeling choices (antenna arrays, spikes, etc...) from being targetable. Having almost 50% of the mass of your vehicle just not count seems silly, and well beyond RAI (cue RAW gnashing of teeth)

DarthDiggler wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:I have seen so many different rulings on this that I deliberately asked the TO before the tournament which is why they were positioned that way.

Privately getting a ruling from the TO beforehand leaves a bad taste in my mouth. First since you are the only one to know a rule has been changed you can play it to your advantage with your opponent not knowing how it is done. Second it allows you and you alone to present your side of the debate to the judge in private with no counter argument present. You secure the ruling in your favor quite easily and when it comes up during a game the judge will dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary just because he has made the call already. I have seen judges say 'well you might be right, but I ruled this way already.' and leave it that way until the next tournament.

The propoer course of action would be for the judge to open the floor for discussion before making a ruling so both sides of the debate can be heard. Needless to say your GW rep is a wonderfully shoddy source of information for this ruling. Should will trump that with the Midwest director of sales or US regional manager?

I was not "privately" getting a ruling from the judge. I was trying to clarify how a model would be played before designing my army list. It was critical for me to know because trying to run squadroned valkyries without some allowance for the footprint of the model is almost impossible. If the ruling had been otherwise i would not have taken squadroned Valkyries and would have changed the army list design. I dont see how it is a bad thing to try to eliminate issues before they come up.

And frankly after all this mess I have changed my list for the regionals because its just not worth dealing with it. Until GW puts out some kind of written ruling I dont feel like running into disagreements at every new tournament about it.

It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

All model movement is measured to the hull of a vehicle or the base, being that a Valk has a base, use it. Thats how GW will tell you to do it to. There is a reason that it does not have a clear base like any other skimmer, and it must be to use fore movement and placement, otherwise you cannot use the rear acess hatch, because the exiting unit, using the back acess, would be under the tail, and because you have to disembark within 2 inches of an acess point, it is impossible, thus the base is used. So to reiterate the easiest solution, is measure from the base, and shooting from the weapons themselves.

doubled wrote:All model movement is measured to the hull of a vehicle or the base, being that a Valk has a base, use it. Thats how GW will tell you to do it to. There is a reason that it does not have a clear base like any other skimmer, and it must be to use fore movement and placement, otherwise you cannot use the rear acess hatch, because the exiting unit, using the back acess, would be under the tail, and because you have to disembark within 2 inches of an acess point, it is impossible, thus the base is used. So to reiterate the easiest solution, is measure from the base, and shooting from the weapons themselves.

Just a correction here. On pg 71 of the BRB you measure movement of a skimmer from the hull ignoring the base except for assault purposes. This has been stated earlier in the thread. Like it has been said before. It is up to your opponent or TO how the models is played. It would be wise to find out how it will be ruled before investing that kind of money to assemble that kind of list.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

I don't see anything underhanded about asking how a TO is planning to handle an issue.

Especially when the issue in question is an item that is open to much interpretation and debate. I say kudos to the guy that asked for having the forethought to avoid an argument after the games have begun.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

Like the def rollers?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

Like the def rollers?

If you don't ask the question, then shame on you. Although it would be nice if the TO posted an FAQ beforehand, it's not required and it certainly isn't required of him/her to phone every participant and tell their decision on Deff Rollas.

What would be underhanded is if person A regular-at-the-store asked in person and got a 'yes they work' and person B from out-of-town called and got a 'no they don't', then on game day shows up with Raider Spam to find out that Person A has 6 BW with Deff Rollas and hey, they work now!

The problem with the new gunship is it has opened a world of opportunity for douchebags.

Ok so im a douchebag for trying to clarify the rules before the event.

I did nothing in secret, and none of my other opponents questioned it. I agree it should have been mentioned before the tournament but Its not my place to do that.

So in your mind anyone using the valkyrie models is a DB?

If thats the case then I consider being considered a DB by you as a badge of honor.

@bigtmac68: No, you're not a douchebag. I don't know what a DB is, but I don't think you did anything wrong by clarifying a possible issue before you made the mistake mid-game.

DB short for Douchebag ;-) And thank you.

bigtmac68 wrote:Ok so im a douchebag for trying to clarify the rules before the event.

You are not a douchebag. You did the right thing, and the same thing any of us would have done prior to an event. There are ambiguous rules in 40k and it's nice to know how a TO wants them to work in their event. It's the same advice we always give on this forum. Check with your opponent or TO beforehand to know what to do in situation "x".

Some people are clearly inventing a double standard, and are being the vocal minority and trying to claim foul play for some ill conceived reason. You did your due dilligence and found out how the TO wanted the Valks to work, and unfortunately, your opponent felt it should have played a different way, and the TO's ruling left a sour taste in his mouth. His ire should be directed to the TO for making a "bad call", not for you for playing the game.

GW is a minatures company that also happens to produce rules. Everyone needs to remember that.

Which is why they've made an awesome model in the Valk, but it's caused a lot of confusion as to 'how' to play it.

Asking for a ruling before a tourney is the best thing a player can do.

ultimately, i think it all boils down to the base of the model. that's where the "buck stops". any model with a base, flying or otherwise measures all actions (from shooting, assaulting, moving, embarking, disembarking and anything else possibly conceivable) in the turn phases from that base, to another base, vehicle or terrain.

the overlap issue of the valkyrie models is not important. as long as the bases didn't overlap. bottom line: the base is where it's at. the base is the only space on the gaming table the flying model occupies.

if dealing with a flying tank or transport or whatever, then all combat actions must be directed at the base. they are different than a landraider. they fly. they have different rules, and they have bases. in a tournament, you can't play an eldar falcon without a base. flying models must have a base.

it is an los issue. anyone that can see the flying model and has range to the BASE of the flying model may shoot and/or assault the model. no, flying models are not invisible if there is no los to its base. the base is just a reference point to the exact location of the model on the gaming table.

this also includes flying vehicles shooting, models shooting from flying vehicles, and models disembarking from flying vehicles. they can't disembark six inches beyond the base, running off the wings. nor can they measure their gun range from the actual weapon. if a model has a base, then the base of the model always defines its gaming parameters. period.

gothmog wrote:iultimately, i think it all boils down to the base of the model. that's where the "buck stops". any model with a base, flying or otherwise measures all actions in the turn phases from that base, to another base or vehicle.

the overlap issue of the valkyrie models is not important. as long as the bases didn't overlap. bottom line: the base is where it's at.

if dealing with a flying tank or transport or whatever, then all combat actions must be directed at the base. they are different than a landraider. they fly. they have different rules, and they have bases. in a tournament, you can't play an eldar falcon without a base. flying models must have a base.

it is an los issue. anyone that can see the flying model and has range to the BASE of the flying model may shoot and/or assault the model. no, flying models are not invisible if there is no los to its base. the base is just a reference point to the exact location of the model on the gaming table.

this also includes models disembarking from the flying vehicle. they can't disembark six inches beyond the base, running off the wings. the base of a model always defines its gaming parameters. period.

Just wow.
House rule assertion, or trolling?
Even cursory skimming of this PAGE of this thread has already proven this is simply false. Thank you, though.

(See: AdeptArticifer - in addition to the page number, he was kind enough to quote the actual rules. Again.)

which part is false?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
i hate house rules. i have no prob with the rules as long as the base can be assaulted and flying models can overlap. basically, i just dig playing the game.

new power-model + vague rules = unintended consequences and big fun. and i don't even play IG anymore. i'd like to take on the uber valk list.

gothmog wrote:which part is false?

Scroll up, as I said it is on this page.
But, as it did not work the first (lol) time so let's try this:

AdeptArtificer wrote:

doubled wrote:All model movement is measured to the hull of a vehicle or the base, being that a Valk has a base, use it. Thats how GW will tell you to do it to. There is a reason that it does not have a clear base like any other skimmer, and it must be to use fore movement and placement, otherwise you cannot use the rear acess hatch, because the exiting unit, using the back acess, would be under the tail, and because you have to disembark within 2 inches of an acess point, it is impossible, thus the base is used. So to reiterate the easiest solution, is measure from the base, and shooting from the weapons themselves.

Just a correction here. On pg 71 of the BRB you measure movement of a skimmer from the hull ignoring the base except for assault purposes. This has been stated earlier in the thread. Like it has been said before. It is up to your opponent or TO how the models is played. It would be wise to find out how it will be ruled before investing that kind of money to assemble that kind of list.

Your assesment of the use of skimmer bases was false. For other models . . . shrug