During the Hardboy semifinals I encountered an interesting situation (by mistake) where I fired a Prism Cannon at a Valkyrie gunship on a board edge. The Valkyrie's base was entirely on the table but one of it's wings was off the board edge (we found out by mistake actually, no one had noticed during play). The template deviated from center mass onto the off board portion of the wing.

I called it a miss in the event and kept on playing.

...here is a diagram of the situation for clarity*:



*The heavy black line is the board edge.

YMDC: was this actually a miss or not?

I think there are a few other, possibly more specific concerns as well:

(1) Is the gunship illegally placed or not?
(2) Does a (centered blast marker) hit on the wings of a Valkyrie or Vendetta count as a 'hull' hit or not?

Welcome to the realm of "Not covered in the rules".

1) gunship is leaving the table this is not allowed. Every one Knows the board edge is the end of the world.

2)a)I play that the wing is part of the hull since the guns are on it and if it wasn't the hull it could in theory hide behind a tree and shoot round without being hit in return.
b)If you have allowed 1) to happen then its only fair to also count this as a hit.

@Tri

Afterward I thought your assessment was correct.

Recalling it again, I also thought that any shot that deviates off board is a miss, per the blast rules, which is why I played it that way at the event.

Happens to us all. Good for you for trying to play fair.

Personally I wish GW explained what the hull was on each vehicle.

If gunships wings don't count then nether do my FirePrisms wings ... yep thats right the two bits at the sides are its wings they've nothing to do with the hull.

I know, when I started thinking that I got really confused, that's why I made this thread.

All told, I suspect that the answers are:

(1) The gunship is illegally placed
(2) Wing hits count as hits (because of weapon locations)

But Im not sure on the RAW, as I haven't researched it.

I seem to have a distinct memory of a vehicle rule that said something like: must hit hull, not barrels, banner poles, arials or WINGS.

Isn't that in the vehicle section...?

I agree with Tri.

Whatever the hull is can't be off the table, so either the Valk was placed illegally, or you've missed the hull.

Augustus wrote:
I seem to have a distinct memory of a vehicle rule that said something like: must hit hull, not barrels, banner poles, arials or WINGS.

actually doesn't list wings ... but allot of idiots, i mean people, have interpreted wings as not being part of the hull.

There's no way in hell a Valkyrie could continue to fly without its wings.

Without the tail, maybe.

The only time the model can be partly off the table is when moving on from reserves. (opens can of worms)

The centre of the blast was off the table so it should be a miss.

Firstly, all you people who believe that the a Valkyrie can NOT fly without its wings should really look at said wings: those wings can't bring any lift! So really, a Valkyrie's wings don't help it fly anyhow! And people who want to tlak about those little engines at the ends, they couldn't keep it aloft either! Valkyrie is just a funny little bird that shouldn't be able to fly as it appears. As for being part of the hull or not? Well, little hints and rumors from GW make it sound like they won't be part of the hull but will be similar to parts of the weapons. Most people will just have to accept that the Valkyrie won't be such a painfully easy target as they want it to be.

As for your situation Augustus, without the rulebook in front of me, I remember that skimmers use their base for placement, but there very well might be a part in there about the hull/no part being off the table edge as well. But I would say its position is 'okay' and considering it had been agreed to being legal during the movement phase (you can't call rules after the fact), it is legal position in the enemy's shooting phase. Since the rules clearly state that rounds falling off the table edge, via the center of their blast marker, do not count, then the round does not count even though it is over the model.

Skinnattittar wrote:Firstly, all you people who believe that the a Valkyrie can NOT fly without its wings should really look at said wings: those wings can't bring any lift! So really, a Valkyrie's wings don't help it fly anyhow! And people who want to tlak about those little engines at the ends, they couldn't keep it aloft either! Valkyrie is just a funny little bird that shouldn't be able to fly as it appears. As for being part of the hull or not? Well, little hints and rumors from GW make it sound like they won't be part of the hull but will be similar to parts of the weapons. Most people will just have to accept that the Valkyrie won't be such a painfully easy target as they want it to be.

As for your situation Augustus, without the rulebook in front of me, I remember that skimmers use their base for placement, but there very well might be a part in there about the hull/no part being off the table edge as well. But I would say its position is 'okay' and considering it had been agreed to being legal during the movement phase (you can't call rules after the fact), it is legal position in the enemy's shooting phase. Since the rules clearly state that rounds falling off the table edge, via the center of their blast marker, do not count, then the round does not count even though it is over the model.

Skimmer base are ignored except for assaulting.

Wings and the tail are not gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles or other miscellaneous rubbish (that has been add for decorative effect) so must indeed be part of the hull.

Who knows if it can fly without the wing .. who cares its part of the model and you're not meant to leave parts off.

Skinnattittar wrote:Firstly, all you people who believe that the a Valkyrie can NOT fly without its wings should really look at said wings: those wings can't bring any lift! So really, a Valkyrie's wings don't help it fly anyhow! And people who want to tlak about those little engines at the ends, they couldn't keep it aloft either! Valkyrie is just a funny little bird that shouldn't be able to fly as it appears.

Really? How much does a Valkyrie weigh? What material is it made from? How much lift is generated by the turbines on the end of the wings?

Valkyries are imaginary. The engines on the tips of the wings allow it to fly because that's the property they were given by the people who made them up.

As for being part of the hull or not? Well, little hints and rumors from GW make it sound like they won't be part of the hull but will be similar to parts of the weapons. Most people will just have to accept that the Valkyrie won't be such a painfully easy target as they want it to be.

What's an example of one of these hints and rumors?

The only other vehicles I know of that have wings in basic 40k are the Eldar skimmers, which universally count the wings as being part of the hull.

Then if the wings are part of the hull, can models be underneath the wings? People have been playing you assault the base with the valk. If the wings are the hull do I just assualt till I'm (in a face down view) touching a wing?

this is counted as a miss, as stated in the rules on page 30 "if the shot scatters so that the hole in the centre of the marker is beyond the table's edge, the shot is a complete miss and is discarded"

Yes, of course you cna be beneath the wings. Not an issue.

If the wings are part of the hull, you must stay 1" away from them. The Valkyrie is tall enough to allow most models to stand under them anyways, though.

I think this can be answered without really getting into the RAW or the RAI.

If the model can be partially off table and be considered in play then certainly you should play the blast marker the same way.

This doesn't answer the question of whether the model is illegally placed or whether the blast template and scatter partially off edge and stil count, but certainly in a game where you allow the wing to hang off then you should have given the same latitude to the player whose blast marker scattered.

I know I count the hull as the actual hull of the valkyrie. Wings are wings just like they are on other miniatures where they don't count for LOS.

For us (myself and my guard friend) we count that hull as stopping where the weapons are mounted under the wing, therefore if both players have lascannons, they both have 48", not the valk has 48" and the other doesn't. We also use the base for placement and assault, but if a wing is hanging off the board, you can still hit it.

Basically if it hit you, you can hit it.

How does anyone get the idea that the wing is not part of the valk's hull? The rules were made the way they are so as not to intimidate people fom modelling cool banners or spiky bits onto their vehicles, not to try to take advantage of poor wording to say part of their model does not count toward LOS.

Because a hull is a hull and a wing isn't part of a hull.

jbalthis wrote:Because a hull is a hull and a wing isn't part of a hull.

How are wings not part of the hull?

jbalthis wrote:I know I count the hull as the actual hull of the valkyrie. Wings are wings just like they are on other miniatures where they don't count for LOS.

LOL

If they are added, sure.

Otherwise the hull is indeed the hull - you know where weapons are attached and relevant game parts are glued on.
(note: weapons are attached to the wings as well as other relevant parts of the model)

I guess becuase I work with aircrafts it makes more sense to me. But a hull isn't a wing.

I'm just trying to establish what a hull actually is on a valkyrie. And once that's established, then the rest of the rules should be applied.

A hull is "the body of a ship"
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage A fuselage is the body of an aircraft. Also having done some research on aircrafts, hull refers to the body of an aircraft.

It was pretty funny when I asked about 10 marines this question. We sat around for about 15 minutes debating and googling what a hull on an aircraft was. One guy even went so far as to grab a hull of an aircraft and show me. LOL.

OK, so by that logic even if the entire scenario was on the table, it was still a miss?

Augustus, sorry for steering away from your original question. No part of a model can be over the board edge unless I'm mistaken, according to the rules.

EDIT: woops didn't read your last post carefully. I'll look it up really quick and get back to you. I guess I should have a disclaimer that I'm still new to the game.

EDIT2: According to my logic of the hull it would be considered a miss. pg. 60

It is not a modern aircraft. It is a IG skimmer.

Have a marine show you the "Hull" on a IG skimmer.

Real life =/= game rules.

Either way, Valks need discussion before the game until FAQ/Errata.

Hull question aside, RAW says it's a miss, even though the rules are sketchy in one area, you can't ignore the clearly written rules elsewhere:

BGB p.30 wrote:If the shot scatters so that the hole in the centre of the marker is beyond the table’s edge, the shot is a complete miss and is discarded.

How would I play it? When the mistake was noticed, I would allow you to declare which units were going to fire at it (to determine which of your guns would be hitting the side armour) then pivot the model so it is as much on the table as possible, then let you roll your hits and scatter, using the AV worked out above, but the new position of the model. It's not a house rule, but seems a fair on-the-spot compromise.

kirsanth wrote:It is not a modern aircraft. It is a IG skimmer.

Have a marine show you the "Hull" on a IG skimmer.

Real life =/= game rules.

Either way, Valks need discussion before the game until FAQ/Errata.

That's the best advice I've read so far. It prevents most arguments.

Okay I see the point of it's a game, but if you use real life terms like, wings, hull, vehicle, these define things in the game as well. Saying Real life verbage is not game verbage is incorrect. The game uses real life terms to define things unless specifically in the rulebook it is defined.

Because GW doesn't a have a FAQ, you need to apply basic logic and definitions to the rulebook. Before any rules like LOS, or measuring distances, assaulting can be applied to a model you need to establish parts of the model. First step, what is a hull? GW rulebook states things like wings do not extend the model's area. So you need to define a hull, because that is what's used for a lot of combat interaction.

I'm not trying to say I'm 100% right or not but I want to explain the logic behind what I'm saying. If you're able to see both sides of the argument then you are able to make an informed decision.

Also to spite the personal attack, I did have marines show me the hull on an IG skimmer. They agreed with me.

jbalthis wrote:Okay I see the point of it's a game, but if you use real life terms like, wings, hull, vehicle, these define things in the game as well. Saying Real life verbage is not game verbage is incorrect. The game uses real life terms to define things unless specifically in the rulebook it is defined.

Because GW doesn't a have a FAQ, you need to apply basic logic and definitions to the rulebook. Before any rules like LOS, or measuring distances, assaulting can be applied to a model you need to establish parts of the model. First step, what is a hull? GW rulebook states things like wings do not extend the model's area. So you need to define a hull, because that is what's used for a lot of combat interaction.

I'm not trying to say I'm 100% right or not but I want to explain the logic behind what I'm saying. If you're able to see both sides of the argument then you are able to make an informed decision.

Also to spite the personal attack, I did have marines show me the hull on an IG skimmer. They agreed with me.

Tri wrote:Happens to us all. Good for you for trying to play fair.

Personally I wish GW explained what the hull was on each vehicle.

If gunships wings don't count then nether do my FirePrisms wings ... yep thats right the two bits at the sides are its wings they've nothing to do with the hull.

Edting to add: Were you just saying that asking for your example to be related to the game was a personal insult?

Augustus wrote:During the Hardboy semifinals I encountered an interesting situation (by mistake) where I fired a Prism Cannon at a Valkyrie gunship on a board edge. The Valkyrie's base was entirely on the table but one of it's wings was off the board edge (we found out by mistake actually, no one had noticed during play). The template deviated from center mass onto the off board portion of the wing.

I called it a miss in the event and kept on playing.

...here is a diagram of the situation for clarity*:



*The heavy black line is the board edge.

YMDC: was this actually a miss or not?

I think there are a few other, possibly more specific concerns as well:

(1) Is the gunship illegally placed or not?
(2) Does a (centered blast marker) hit on the wings of a Valkyrie or Vendetta count as a 'hull' hit or not?

I would proffer you missed the hull. If the hull had been placed properly the shot would have been off the table correct? Therefore it would remain off the table.

AdeptArtificer wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is not a modern aircraft. It is a IG skimmer.

Have a marine show you the "Hull" on a IG skimmer.

Real life =/= game rules.

Either way, Valks need discussion before the game until FAQ/Errata.

That's the best advice I've read so far. It prevents most arguments.

Sure, I think thats reasonable, but I also see the real life issue pretty clearly.

A Valkyrie is an aircraft, they don't fly well with a wing shot off. Arguing they do, reality and fiction aside, seems, well pretty tenuous. My gut tells me wing hits for blasts (in the boundary of the table, not like the OP) should count.

This view is supported by the Eldar vehicles that all have c shaped wings and are always played as hits.



These are both hits, aren't they?

I'd like to offer a comment to your statement that the valkyrie could not fly without one of its wings. I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing. I've seen an F-15 that made it back missing almost its entire right wing, A-10s that can be missing half of each wing and still make it back to base. An F-16 flies not because its wings create a great deal of lift but instead because it has a massive amount of power compared to its weight. The wings on said F-16 has hardly any curve to them and are very little in the way of being an airfoil. With all its excess thrust it can keep itself airborne. So to say a valkyrie can't fly because you hit its wing is not entirely accurate, it does have humongous turbine engines which I am sure generate quite a deal of thrust. I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

Augustus wrote:

AdeptArtificer wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is not a modern aircraft. It is a IG skimmer.

Have a marine show you the "Hull" on a IG skimmer.

Real life =/= game rules.

Either way, Valks need discussion before the game until FAQ/Errata.

That's the best advice I've read so far. It prevents most arguments.

Sure, I think thats reasonable, but I also see the real life issue pretty clearly.

A Valkyrie is an aircraft, they don't fly well with a wing shot off. Arguing they do, reality and fiction aside, seems, well pretty tenuous. My gut tells me wing hits for blasts (in the boundary of the table, not like the OP) should count.

This view is supported by the Eldar vehicles that all have c shaped wings and are always played as hits.



These are both hits, aren't they?

Yes both are hits. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to ignore wings and tails.

IGVamp wrote:I'd like to offer a comment to your statement that the valkyrie could not fly without one of its wings. I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing. I've seen an F-15 that made it back missing almost its entire right wing, A-10s that can be missing half of each wing and still make it back to base. An F-16 flies not because its wings create a great deal of lift but instead because it has a massive amount of power compared to its weight. The wings on said F-16 has hardly any curve to them and are very little in the way of being an airfoil. With all its excess thrust it can keep itself airborne. So to say a valkyrie can't fly because you hit its wing is not entirely accurate, it does have humongous turbine engines which I am sure generate quite a deal of thrust. I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

No one is saying "because it is hit it cannot fly".
What people are saying is that the wing can indeed be hit, and that has the potential to destroy the skimmer. Not that it WILL destroy it - the results are not yet determined.

The only other assertion has been "it is not possible to damage the vehicle because its wing was hit".

Your assertion does nothing to assuage that.

Tri wrote:Yes both are hits. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to ignore wings and tails.

Well... except the part about blast markers and holes and where they fall on the model. If it's off the hull, it's off the hull. The word hull is defined as being the main body of the craft.

* Main Entry: hull
* Pronunciation: \ˈhəl\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hulu; akin to Old High German hala hull, Old English helan to conceal — more at hell
* Date: before 12th century

1 a : the outer covering of a fruit or seed b : the persistent calyx or involucre that subtends some fruits (as a strawberry)
2 a : the frame or body of a ship or boat exclusive of masts, yards, sails, and rigging b : the main body of a usually large or heavy craft or vehicle (as an airship or tank)

This may be considered an SQ - but can someone give me a quick potted summary as to the objections against targeting the wings? I mean I don't try to convince people that the tracks on my LR aren't "part of the hull" - and I even field a Vendetta from time to time.

EDIT: meaning the reason behind it, not the rules per se - is there something dreadfully underpowering about being able to target the wings (apart from the obvious 'getting shot out of the sky' bit of course, smart guy )? Or overpowering if you do count the wings?

IGVamp wrote:...I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing..... I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

Well certainly, but don't you think those airframes are out of the fight at least? Regardless of weather they exploded in fireballs or were just to hurt to fight anymore.

For example I always assumed that every wounding hit in the game was not necessarily a kill, just a casualty, some wound/damage that made the model no longer a combat effective one.

EDIT:

I don't try to convince people that the tracks on my LR aren't "part of the hull"

Oh, excellent point!

EDIT 2 and 3;

The Green Git wrote:

Tri wrote:Yes both are hits. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to ignore wings and tails.

Well... except the part about blast markers and holes and where they fall on the model. If it's off the hull, it's off the hull. The word hull is defined as being the main body of the craft.

OK, by that logic, I say this is a miss then:


Would you support that?

Augustus wrote:For example I always assumed that every wounding hit in the game was not necessarily a kill, just a casualty, some wound/damage that made the model no longer a combat effective one.

You actually have RAW on your side with this one

BGB p.24 wrote:Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle.

Right, like say... a one winged Valkyrie!

My point is the reality parallel supports either side based on perspective.

Augustus wrote:OK, by that logic, I say this is a miss then:


Would you support that?

Dunno... this Falcon/Wave Serpent example is not as clear cut. Is the projection off the front of a Falcon hull or wing? That would depend on GW telling us since we have no real world approximation to draw from. If GW says it's a wing, then I would support your assertion.

I think they are both hits.

I could see a reasonable case for the Valk being the hull only, not the wing and the Eldar wing being part of the hull too, but it's kind of a slippery slope.

Falcons have some obvious super-structure underneath them where the Valks are obviously just wings.

Containing the hard points though, for weapons on the Valk wings, well that's another issue.... It could create a situation where the Valk can shoot, but not be shot at if the wings don't count. That seems wrong.

Frazzled wrote:

Augustus wrote:During the Hardboy semifinals I encountered an interesting situation (by mistake) where I fired a Prism Cannon at a Valkyrie gunship on a board edge. The Valkyrie's base was entirely on the table but one of it's wings was off the board edge (we found out by mistake actually, no one had noticed during play). The template deviated from center mass onto the off board portion of the wing.

I called it a miss in the event and kept on playing.

...here is a diagram of the situation for clarity*:



*The heavy black line is the board edge.

YMDC: was this actually a miss or not?

I think there are a few other, possibly more specific concerns as well:

(1) Is the gunship illegally placed or not?
(2) Does a (centered blast marker) hit on the wings of a Valkyrie or Vendetta count as a 'hull' hit or not?

I would proffer you missed the hull. If the hull had been placed properly the shot would have been off the table correct? Therefore it would remain off the table.

I disagree. If the valkyrie was "placed" properly, then the template would have been placed on the valkyrie in it's proper position, and then still scattered onto the wing. If you believe the wing is part of the hull, then it would have been a hit.

I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

Frankly, if I can't shoot at the wings, I'll not be taking any damage from shots fired from the wings

IGVamp wrote:I'd like to offer a comment to your statement that the valkyrie could not fly without one of its wings. I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing. I've seen an F-15 that made it back missing almost its entire right wing, A-10s that can be missing half of each wing and still make it back to base. An F-16 flies not because its wings create a great deal of lift but instead because it has a massive amount of power compared to its weight. The wings on said F-16 has hardly any curve to them and are very little in the way of being an airfoil. With all its excess thrust it can keep itself airborne. So to say a valkyrie can't fly because you hit its wing is not entirely accurate, it does have humongous turbine engines which I am sure generate quite a deal of thrust. I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

The key difference is that you're looking at the Valk as a flier, while in 40k it's reduced to a skimmer; and it's ability to stay airborne without moving huge distances is a function of the thrusters on the sides of the wings.

And, as kirsanth said, so long as a hit to the wings can cause it to be destroyed the wings are vulnerable.

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

Indeed, this Razorback should get to shoot.

Augustus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

Indeed, this Razorback should get to shoot.

QFT Augustus.

The Valkyrie is clearly such an unusual design that it goes into areas where the rules just aren't adequate.

I'd support the idea that a unit should not be able to be in a position where it can shoot but not be shot at. This does certainly create an issue given the way the wing weapons on the Valk are mounted.

As for the Valk/Razorback pic... you could put a Land Raider, Leman Russ w/sponsons or Predator w/sponsons in the place of the Valk and get similar results. I'm not sure this makes a case for the Valk wings being legitimate targets as much as making a case for wonky models creating situations where rules are not adequate. We still have the wording of the rules stating the hull is the target and point to measure to.

The Green Git wrote:The Valkyrie is clearly such an unusual design that it goes into areas where the rules just aren't adequate. ...

Certainly!

I suspect playing a Valk in practice discretion will be well advised.

(Im still not sure how you can really disembark in 2 inches if the stand is >2 inches off the table?)

I no longer want to play 9 of these. 3 will be difficult enough.

Grav-Chute Insertion, or whatever it is called.

Or get a hill/ruin/etc.

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

PG 60. "when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)"

So according to RAW if you have a curved barrel that can peek around corners. YES, you can shoot at things that can not shoot back at you.

I'll agree it's "lolwut?"

Then you kind of missed my point, even in agreement.

Targeting the WEAPON is not what I refer to - even barrels. That is odd, but has been covered, and yes RAW.

Targeting what the weapon is attached to is (according to some assertions) is not legal either.
So the wing cannot be targeted, but the weapon can be blown off the wing - unless the wing the weapon is attached to is hit, then the weapon cannot be blown off the wing.

THATS a lolwut.

jbalthis wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

PG 60. "when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)"

So according to RAW if you have a curved barrel that can peek around corners. YES, you can shoot at things that can not shoot back at you.

I'll agree it's "lolwut?"

Yes but again i ask where wings and tail are in that list? If we run through the list what do we find in common? they're all small spindly things that don't really matter.

Should also be noted that only the guns barrel is ignored the rest of the gun is in the wing so you must at least be able to shoot at that.

"Ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc" seems to imply that something as large as the Valkyrie's wings aren't included. Nothing in that list comes close to the size or significance of the wings.

:EDIT: Ninja'd.

I don't know how this will evolve the discussion, but we do have a consensus approved situation where a part of the model that 'must' be glued onto it doesn't count as hull.

You guys remember the catch-22 of drop pod petals.

You 'have to' open the pod when it lands. But no one wanted to extend the hull of the model and thus the deployment radius to that extreme of a measurement. So someone got clever and proclaimed that "petals aren't part of the hull"

Well, they were when it was closed. Its not really about the definition of the word 'hull' its more about the easiest way to incorporate a new model with weird goings-on into an existing ruleset.

I highly doubt people would discount the wings as 'not part of the hull' if the model had not included the game-breaking flying stand. It has weapons mounted on it. Gun barrels, aerials, banner poles are all pretty insubstantial things, but wings?

If it turns out that the community figures out a good way to handle the valk and its messed up flying stand, then we will build consensus. Unfortunately, it seems like we are going to be responsible for fixing these rules again. Which really pisses me off.

What i'd argue...

If he was coming on from reserve, then i'd say his vehicle was legally placed, and as your shot drifted out of the play area, i would argue that it was an automatic miss based on raw. (understanding that this gives valks that enter play and keep most of their model of table increased defense against blasts)

If he was already in play, I'd argue that his move wasn't legal. A big, substantial part of his model was hanging off the table.

Can you attached weapons to petals/antannae/gun barrels(!!)/banners that are on vehicles?

According to dictionary.com, the hull is:

1. the hollow, lowermost portion of a ship, floating partially submerged and supporting the remainder of the ship.
2. Aeronautics. a. the boatlike fuselage of a flying boat on which the plane lands or takes off.
b. the cigar-shaped arrangement of girders enclosing the gasbag of a rigid dirigible.

So.. uh.. that's not helpful at all.

Shep wrote:
You guys remember the catch-22 of drop pod petals.

You 'have to' open the pod when it lands. But no one wanted to extend the hull of the model and thus the deployment radius to that extreme of a measurement. So someone got clever and proclaimed that "petals aren't part of the hull"

? sorry but even if you claim that the petals are not part of the hull you would only be ignoring them for shooting purposes. It would still have a massive foot print that you can't come with in 1" of and you can deploy from.

in aeronatucs, a fuselage is the main body of an aircraft excluding the wings.

Also, Has anyone ever been in the situation where the sponsons on a raider/predator/lemon russ were the only thing visible?

Unfortunately, the fuselage is only the hull of flying boats. If it looks boat-like.

For example:



I don't think "hull" actually has a definition for something like a Valkyrie.

Erhem,

I don't know what everyone else's Valkyries are made of, or represented to be made of, but mine are made of Heklethmarratrysphritum. It has properties such as being able to levitate via electromagnetic manipulation, so it can fly quite easily even with both wings blow off. The wings of my Valkyries are simply exist as part of a tradition that flying vehicles have some sort of wing like aparatus, but are essentially decorative and provide a place for weapons to mount to, but are not necessary for continued flight. The jets at the wing tips are also strictly decorative, and have no actual purpose. The tail boom is used mostly for extra-atmospheric travel, and has no effect otherwise.

So, my Valkyrie's wings are decorative and part of the weapons mounting system, but are not part of the hull any way more than the body of a heavy bolter is. Heck, I could even say my nose section is strictly decorative and the crewmen in the body are the actual pilots, with the models up front simply being mannequins as part of tradition.

Until GW or some other large body that the vast majority of gamers can agree with, I will continue to play that only the main body of the Valkyrie actually counts as the hull, and thus far no-one has objected to this assessment, and other IG players where I game are following suit, with the only objections coming from TFGs, and they are never happy anyhow so nobody really gives a rat's ass.

I don't care about your magic lollipop airplane. I was talking about the Valkyrie made by Games Workshop.

Ok Skinnattittar what about the weapons in the wing i can still hit those right? They take up allot of space under the wing don't they. How do you work out if the hole is over them?

@ Tri : If you hit the body of the weapons (so we can only include the Multiple-Missile Pod and in the case of the non-existent Vendetta, the twin linked lascannons which might be mounted on wing slings) then yes, you can count that as a hit, I see no problem with that, RAW that is.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Tri : If you hit the body of the weapons (so we can only include the Multiple-Missile Pod and in the case of the non-existent Vendetta, the twin linked lascannons which might be mounted on wing slings) then yes, you can count that as a hit, I see no problem with that, RAW that is.

I still don't see how "wings aren't hull" is RAW.

I still don't see how "wings aren't hull" is RAW.

Or how one would be TFG for having an objection to his conclusion. I look at that diagram of the vendetta shooting the razorback and see TFG written all over it.

I don't think there is a RAW.

Hulls are supposed to be for boats, missiles, and dirigibles.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think there is a RAW.

Hulls are supposed to be for boats, missiles, and dirigibles.

This is pretty much correct, but we can RAI (oh no a dirty word!!!) that wings are "hull" because of the sentence about what doesn't count as "hull."

On the plus side, we now know undoubtedly that shooting a Deathstrike missile is shooting the hull!

Orkeosaurus wrote:On the plus side, we now know undoubtedly that shooting a Deathstrike missile is shooting the hull!

Since a missile is not a barrel

Well, having worked in aviation myself, the fuselage of an aircraft (I will cite everything from a C130 to a Huey, including Apaches, Blackhawks, A-10s, Predators, etc...) is pretty much always also refered to as the hull. Although Orkeo seems to want to be ignorant of other definitions than the one he found, and the cited opinions of those in the know, hull also includes the 'body' or fuselage of an aircraft. So, I would also include the 'pontoons,' the extensions from the back of the main body, as part of the hull. The wings however, are not.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't care about your magic lollipop airplane. I was talking about the Valkyrie made by Games Workshop.

So was I. Apparently I was not aware that Orkeo is the one who gets to decide what and how a Valkyrie flies, because I sure as heck don't remember it being described in the rules section, much less what it is made of (majorily) nor the properties of said material in the rules. But it is possible I am struck blind whenever I try to read that section of the rules.

It's not the correct terminology. And Valkyries are skimmers anyways.

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Actually by your own logic there's no way to tell what the hull is, because everyone makes up whatever rules they want for their vehicle, so your arguments are kind of pointless.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's not the correct terminology. And Valkyries are skimmers anyways.

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Unfortunately for you, it is quite a known fact that Orks LOVE jelly beans.

Actually upon further research, a hull is valid for the body of an armored tank. Which is further evidence for my theory of every vehicle rule having been tested on a Predator...

Following this, it might be possible for the hull of an eldar skimmer to include the wings as a function of it being a tank. Valks aren't tanks anyways though.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's not the correct terminology. And Valkyries are skimmers anyways.

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Actually by your own logic there's no way to tell what the hull is, because everyone makes up whatever rules they want for their vehicle, so your arguments are kind of pointless.

Just to repeat one of my earlier posts, unless defined specifically in the rules you have to go by real world definitions. Lascannons are documented in the wargear book. Also, a barrel (real world terminology) can be applied to the picture or model of a lascannon and be identified.

augustus5 wrote:I think this can be answered without really getting into the RAW or the RAI.

If the model can be partially off table and be considered in play then certainly you should play the blast marker the same way.

This doesn't answer the question of whether the model is illegally placed or whether the blast template and scatter partially off edge and stil count, but certainly in a game where you allow the wing to hang off then you should have given the same latitude to the player whose blast marker scattered.

To many variables are not covered in the rules. Because of that, this is how i would play it.

jbalthis wrote:Just to repeat one of my earlier posts, unless defined specifically in the rules you have to go by real world definitions. Lascannons are documented in the wargear book. Also, a barrel (real world terminology) can be applied to the picture or model of a lascannon and be identified.

I know.

I was referring to Skinn's weird post about defining parts of a vehicle as whatever you want them to be. Like saying the front half of your Valkyrie is a decorative banner.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

jbalthis wrote:Just to repeat one of my earlier posts, unless defined specifically in the rules you have to go by real world definitions. Lascannons are documented in the wargear book. Also, a barrel (real world terminology) can be applied to the picture or model of a lascannon and be identified.

I know.

I was referring to Skinn's weird post about defining parts of a vehicle as whatever you want them to be. Like saying the front half of your Valkyrie is a decorative banner.

Noooo, I was kicking back in your face that you can't decide what a vehicle is made of and how important it is to its operation. A wing is not part of an aircraft's hull, it is attached to the hull. Orkeo is not the expert on what is imperative to what makes the Valkyrie flies, as there are no rules about what is imperative to keep skimmers aloft.

kirsanth wrote:Can you attached weapons to petals/antannae/gun barrels(!!)/banners that are on vehicles?

Skinnattittar wrote:Noooo, I was kicking back in your face that you can't decide what a vehicle is made of and how important it is to its operation. A wing is not part of an aircraft's hull, it is attached to the hull. Orkeo is not the expert on what is imperative to what makes the Valkyrie flies, as there are no rules about what is imperative to keep skimmers aloft.

Why are you referring to me in the third person?

The thrusters on the tips of the wings allow it to operate as a skimmer. That doesn't necessarily make those thrusters vulnerable to fire, but if you were trying to represent the vulnerabilities of the vehicle accurately it would come into play.

If your Valkyries all have whatever properties you want them to, why can't my "turret" be a decorative cardboard cut-out of a turret, immune to fire? Why can't the front half of my Land Raider be a decorative flag that you can't shoot? It's stupid. Even if the nature of the thrusters don't carry any weight in the rules, there are a lot of instances where the properties of the vehicle do, so I don't know why you think the properties of the vehicle are subjective.

Straw Man Argument : An informal fallacy, a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Example;

Orkeosaurus wrote:If your Valkyries all have whatever properties you want them to, why can't my "turret" be a decorative cardboard cut-out of a turret, immune to fire? Why can't the front half of my Land Raider be a decorative flag that you can't shoot? It's stupid. Even if the nature of the thrusters don't carry any weight in the rules, there are a lot of instances where the properties of the vehicle do, so I don't know why you think the properties of the vehicle are subjective.

EDIT : Misspelling corrections.

Explain yourself.

If you're going to insult me, you sure as hell better back it up.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Explain yourself.

If you're going to insult me, you sure as hell better back it up.

If you want to get into a pissing contest, you're welcome to try and take it to PMs, but I am not trying to 'insult' anyone. You want an argument? You're welcome to try and make one, but that is not what these threads are for, but I also reserve the right to make an example of types of arguments for others. They can do with it as they wish.

So you can't back up the assertion that I've misrepresented you. Or give any shred of evidence for it. Good to know.

Orkeosaurus wrote:So you can't back up the assertion that I've misrepresented you. Good to know.

I already have and I will not chase a shadow of an opponent that can do me no harm. I am moving on, my suggestion is you do as well. I will make no more posts to this line of badgering.

You just copied and pasted the definition of a logical fallacy onto a post with a quote on it. You have no argument.

If calling the other guy wrong counts as proof then: No, you!



Now, if that silliness is over, does anyone know if there were rules governing the hull for fliers in the Imperial Armor books? Or was it just measured from the base?

jbalthis wrote:in aeronatucs, a fuselage is the main body of an aircraft excluding the wings.

Also, Has anyone ever been in the situation where the sponsons on a raider/predator/lemon russ were the only thing visible?

All I can say is that if the IG players in my area start trying to pull off some of this crap then I'm sure as hell going to be parking my Land Raiders and Predators where only the weapon sponsons are visable from behind cover so I can shoot and the enemy can't shoot back at my invisible sponsons.

augustus5 wrote:

jbalthis wrote:in aeronatucs, a fuselage is the main body of an aircraft excluding the wings.

Also, Has anyone ever been in the situation where the sponsons on a raider/predator/lemon russ were the only thing visible?

All I can say is that if the IG players in my area start trying to pull off some of this crap then I'm sure as hell going to be parking my Land Raiders and Predators where only the weapon sponsons are visable from behind cover so I can shoot and the enemy can't shoot back at my invisible sponsons.

Are sponsons listed as not being part of the hull? Because I have and seen other do this, but they can be fired upon as not just the weapon barrels must be visible, but the weapons too, and I think those are not excluded as targetables. We just count the vehicle as being in cover.

Maybe it depends on whether or not they're enclosed?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Maybe it depends on whether or not they're enclosed?

How so? Like the sponsons on a Russ compared to the sponsons on a new Predator? You still have a straight line back to the weapon's body, depending if you include the sponson as a targetable. I think shear acceptance over time push this one out of the gray area and into the black as targetable as well.

Yeah, a Russ and a Pred would be an example. It's the difference between having something attatched to the main body, and something integrated into the main body.

Although, I agree that convention will probably swing one way for all sponsons.

I'm so happy you guys brought this back on track.

Here's my two cents, the valkyrie still has a large hull if we agree a hull is a hull. By including the wings, you do INCREASE the modeal area greatly. Now if we include the wings into the hull then how do you have units underneath a hull? It's not allowed. The whole rule about assualting the base of skimmer is thrown out the window. Then run into measuring distances to and from the valkyrie problems, assualting it, can you see through it?

I honestly think if you don't count the wings as part of the hull you run into LESS rule problems...

I also would like to point out the people who randomnly chime in "If IG player does this I call bull at my LGS" aren't really providing anything for this thread. Except point out that people aren't really caring about RAW but instead care about what they think would make it easier to kill a valk.

Are you sure you can't move units underneath the hull of a vehicle (if you're not within an inch of it)?

That would certainly throw the wings out of the picture.

I'm at work right now so I can't view a rulebook, so I can't verify. Take that with a grain of salt until I can back it up.

You can move under Models so long as you remain 1" from the physical thing or its base.

Also yay, big flamestorm and I didn't cause it! Oh how times have changed :3

It depends if you count 'on top of' as being synonymous with 'over':

BGB p.71 wrote:Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

EDIT: Gwar!'s interpretation seems to be the only sane way of handling the issue whilst counting the wings as targetable

The origin of the word "hull" seems to favor the wings not being included.

"Hull" for a tank comes from "hull" for a ship, which comes from "hull" as a synonym for the husk of a fruit or nut. That usage of "hull" comes from Old English "helan", which means "to conceal".

Wings aren't concealing anything, nor are they in any way analogous to the husk of a fruit. The word has changed meaning over time, but the meaning has always been a form of protective cover or shell around something else.

I think the real problem is that Games Workshop assumed every vehicle was a tank, and thus every significant part of it would be the hull or a turret. Hence all the examples of untargetable pieces of the vehicle being trivial, or too small to target.

This seems very very simple to me. I don't know why people have to start talking about real world definitions of hulls or talk about the Valkyrie's properties of flight. The Rulebook gives us a definition for hull.

"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions. Since you have to build the valkarie with its wings and it obviously is not one of the things mentioned it is part of the hull. If you want to argue against that somehow that would be fine but you we don't really need to talk about if it needs the wings to fly or what the real world definition of a hull is to solve this one.

You're seeing what you want to see. You could say that the part in parenthesis applies to the turret only, or doesn't apply to the hull or turret at all, but tell you to ignore those.

Unless it says, "A hull is ...." Then a definition is not provided.

Gwar! wrote: Also yay, big flamestorm and I didn't cause it! Oh how times have changed :3

Does make a change ... welcome back.


Wings ... you made that up at no point are wings defined in a gaming term for any thing.

oh and while we going to dictionary corner for fluff please look at 3 ...

Hull
1.
====1. The dry outer covering of a fruit, seed, or nut; a husk.
====2. The enlarged calyx of a fruit, such as a strawberry, that is usually green and easily detached.
2.
====1. Nautical. The frame or body of a ship, exclusive of masts, engines, or superstructure.
====2. The main body of various other large vehicles, such as a tank, airship, or flying boat.
3. The outer casing of a rocket, guided missile, or spaceship.


If a Valkyrie isn't a space ship then i don't know what is

Tri wrote:If a Valkyrie isn't a space ship then i don't know what is

<nitpick> The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Valkyrie Variant and The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Vendetta Variant have been suitably Blessed by the Tech Priests and Enginseers of the Omnissiah to provide additional Most Holy Protection for the servants of The Most Holy Immortal God-Emperor. However, doing so results in Additional Weight due to the Most Holy Blessed Armour Plating of the Emperors Fury, and as such the Most Holy Blessed Jet Engines of the Omnissiah become strained under the Awesome Radiance of His Most Holy Light. As such, The Most Holy Emperor has so decreed that this Most Holy Variant of the Most Holy God-Emperor's particular Most Holy Vehicle is to be Rendered incapable of Most Blessed Space Flight, and as such can only sustain Slightly Less Than Most Holy Atmospheric Flight after being transported to the Emperors World on a Most Holy Cargo Drop Ship of the Most Holy Imperial Navy</nitpick>

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:If a Valkyrie isn't a space ship then i don't know what is

<nitpick> The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Valkyrie Variant and The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Vendetta Variant have been suitably Blessed by the Tech Priests and Enginseers of the Omnissiah to provide additional Most Holy Protection for the servants of The Most Holy Immortal God-Emperor. However, doing so results in Additional Weight due to the Most Holy Blessed Armour Plating of the Emperors Fury, and as such the Most Holy Blessed Jet Engines of the Omnissiah become strained under the Awesome Radiance of His Most Holy Light. As such, The Most Holy Emperor has so decreed that this Most Holy Variant of the Most Holy God-Emperor's particular Most Holy Vehicle is to be Rendered incapable of Most Blessed Space Flight, and as such can only sustain Slightly Less Than Most Holy Atmospheric Flight after being transported to the Emperors World on a Most Holy Cargo Drop Ship of the Most Holy Imperial Navy</nitpick>

Not my problem its a space ship with too much armour to make it into space, it can still fly in space just not make orbit under its own power

It has air breathing turbines - read IA books, they mention the flight systems on more than one occasion. They do not have space capability - a thunderhawk has far far more armour yet is fine with air-space, as it has different engines actually capable of space flight.

As for not being able to move under the wings - of course you can. As long as your base (or hull) is more than 1" away (for an enemy) you have no restrictions placed upon you. Big, big trhread provbed this conclusively.

Yay Gwar is back! Though I mostly disagree with you, this forum has been a boring and slowed place without you.

Wings are hull. Anything 'not hull' is decorative elements or pokey bits (or weapons). To prevent this situation from happening In the same way that you must draw LOS to the body of an infantry model (so as not to penalize dramatically posed models) you are not allowed to draw LOS to the 'dramatically posed' parts of your tank.

Basically, our rule is this: if the part could have been left off the model or if it is a gun barrel, then you can't target it.

Trasvi wrote:Yay Gwar is back! Though I mostly disagree with you, this forum has been a boring and slowed place without you.

This is because GW think that "Having fun" is an excuse to write sloppy rules. Honestly, give myself, Yakface and a few others a marker, we could tighten up the rules in 3 weeks max

Not to mention, shooting a wing off the valk will probably make it crash. The thing is no A-10!

whitedragon wrote:Not to mention, shooting a wing off the valk will probably make it crash. The thing is no A-10!

THE MOST HOLY ARMOUR PLATING OF THE EMPERORS RIGHTEOUS MOST HOLY.....
.....

.....



..... FAITH FAITH BLAH BLAH!

applecookie wrote:"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions. Since you have to build the valkarie with its wings and it obviously is not one of the things mentioned it is part of the hull.

That's essentially my conclusion now as well, the 'wings' reference I was thinking of earlier actually came from the rules for shooting at MODELS not vehicles.

Trasvi wrote:Wings are hull. Anything 'not hull' is decorative elements or pokey bits (or weapons). To prevent this situation from happening In the same way that you must draw LOS to the body of an infantry model (so as not to penalize dramatically posed models) you are not allowed to draw LOS to the 'dramatically posed' parts of your tank.

Indeed.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I don't know what everyone else's Valkyries are made of, ...mine are made of Heklethmarratrysphritum. ...so it can fly quite easily even with both wings blow off....essentially decorative and provide a place for weapons to mount to, but are not necessary for continued flight. The jets at the wing tips are also strictly decorative

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Actually by your own logic there's no way to tell what the hull is, because everyone makes up whatever rules they want for their vehicle, so your arguments are kind of pointless.

Orkeosaurus, I salute you for nailing it. That was hilarious IMO. Well spoken. Those arguments "are quite pointless", I agree. Furthermore, if someone were in a tournament with me and said the wings don't count, as they are not for flight, well, that just sounds ridiculous, I would laugh, ask if they are serious and then call a judge.

To ad some support to this position, are the wings of a valkyrie decorative, heroically posed or optional? (No, they are part of every kit).

yeah,
That was a Hit all day long!

I'd have asked the dude to move his gunship to a legal position without changing it's direction...

after the dude had put his model 2/3" more towards the center of the table so that it was legally placed, your corresponding shot would have been 2/3" more towards the center and after scatter still been on the table.

Panic...

applecookie wrote:This seems very very simple to me. I don't know why people have to start talking about real world definitions of hulls or talk about the Valkyrie's properties of flight. The Rulebook gives us a definition for hull.

"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions...

OK then... let me ask this question:

If "the hull is everything on the vehicle" as you suppose, why does the passage also go on to state "or turret"? Clearly we can see from the sentence the author does NOT consider every part of the vehicle it's hull or he would not have bothered to include "or turret". A "hull" is a hull. It has a dictionary definition just as "turret" does.

We can categorically state the book says Turrets and Hulls are valid targets, and Gun Barrels, Antennas, Banner Poles are not. Let's not even talk about what the "etc" in that clause means as it requires interpretation. One interpretation is "everything besides Hulls and Turrets" and another interpretation is "whatever the reader decides etc. means".

Again I maintain that the Valk is a flying rules grey area and is in dire need of an FAQ from GW. Maybe Yak should get to work on that so they have something to base their FAQ on.

Edit: Smilie added for effect. I think this whole thread is rather amusing.

The Green Git wrote:

applecookie wrote:This seems very very simple to me. I don't know why people have to start talking about real world definitions of hulls or talk about the Valkyrie's properties of flight. The Rulebook gives us a definition for hull.

"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions...

OK then... let me ask this question:

If "the hull is everything on the vehicle" as you suppose, why does the passage also go on to state "or turret"? Clearly we can see from the sentence the author does NOT consider every part of the vehicle it's hull or he would not have bothered to include "or turret". A "hull" is a hull. It has a dictionary definition just as "turret" does....

Because the rule was written for tanks? Because not all vehicles have a turret?

The Green Git wrote:

OK then... let me ask this question:

If "the hull is everything on the vehicle" as you suppose, why does the passage also go on to state "or turret"?

easy the turret on a vyper for example is 80% Guardian, 10% gun and 10% seat.

Because weapons are mounted either on the hull or on turrets?

The mind boggles.

Shep wrote:If he was coming on from reserve, then I'd say his vehicle was legally placed...

yeah,
I disagree, I think that allowing a overhanging vehicle that comes in from reserves should only apply to vehicles with a move insufficant to get the whole model onto the table.. eg baneblades.
the valk has a 12" move and should be able to be placed completely on the table and should never over hang.

Also I think that the wings are targetable as they are too substantial to ignore, house weapons and provide cover.

I also think that you should be able to assault the wings, no trooper is going to think 'I'm not going to attack this valk with my melta bomb because I can only reach the wing...'
nope he's going to slap that bad boy on the wing and watch the sparks fly!

Panic...

While I think the wings should count for blast hits and as LOS targets, I have a double standard, because I also think the owning player ought to have the ability to put things under them.

I think the size of the flight stand demonstrates designers intent for other things, tanks even to be underneath them.

I don't have much of RAW case for that thought.

The valkyrie is so cool, but what a pain to actually play it.

Putting a 2" model under a 6" flight stand allows for it to be outside of the 1" that is prohibited.

Seems to follow RAW to me.

Or did I miss something?

kirsanth wrote:Putting a 2" model under a 6" flight stand allows for it to be outside of the 1" that is prohibited.

Seems to follow RAW to me.

Or did I miss something?

You understand things well.

yeah,
Is there a reason a enemy model can't stand under the wing? It's not occuping the same space as the valk...

This is a 3d game!

Panic...

On the plus side, the flight stand made the Valkyrie's rules an issue even before the hull definition did.

OK I see what you all mean, as in >1 inch Z dimension distance vs X,Y.

That's actually fairly enlightening and solves a lot of things.

Anyone notice the base on a Valk is about the size of the Hull less Wings and Tail?

(ducks and runs, laughing) :lol

That does help some when assaulting.

The rest of the time it is 100% irrelevant.

If Games Workshop came out and said; "All measurements concerning the Valkyrie go from the base, all lines of sight come from the model," worded to the purpose that attacks to and from the Valkyrie, embarking and disembarking, would go to the base, while lines of sight and facings, including embarking and disembarking (er go models must be near the proper areas with respect to the base), to and from. I could not see many qualms from a logistics perspective. Just treat the wings as sponsons with fixed weapons, not really a big headache.

If

if


(Thats a big if)

If I may, I would like to offer some advice that could help shed some light on the subject.

First, as to the whole 'hull' thing... aircraft normally do not have hulls, they have wings and a fuselage. Thus, the stock GW definations about what can be seen for LOS applies about as throughly as for non-vehicles that do not have a humanoid body, such as a spore mine or tau drone. Where the targeting rules have failed, in the past we have always been forced to come to a compromise--so no one is happy hehe as the RAW can not be fully satisifed.

As a side note, non-vehicle models with wings EXPLICITLY exclude wings as being targetable--despite the wing being an 'obvious' part of the body and the obvious ramifications of blowing a birds wings off in respect to the health of said bird. Thus, the argument can be made that wings are excluded from vehicles for the same reasons that they are excluded from non-vehicles.

Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views. I have seen some people saying you can put a tank under a valkyrie. That is the same as stacking a rhino on top of a rhino. The rule 'No unit may occupy the same space' is not GW stating a principle of physics, namely that no 2 pieces of matter can occupy the same physical space (outside of quantum mechanics). I would love to see that game where the players had to look up the GW rule to assert that yes, the two tanks 'phasing' into each other and occuping the same space was indeed invalid.

Funny observations aside, puting something under a legal part of the valkyrie is the same as putting that vehicle under the flying base.

Also, note that there is no other restriction to being under/over a model other than not being able to occupy the same space. The 1 inch restriction applies only to enemy units in their movement phase, in the assault phase where the 1 inch rule is lifted you STILL can not occupy the same space as another model. AKA, you cant assault a rhino and stand on top of it with your assault move. Plus, the 1 inch rule only applies to enemy models, thus friendlies would be free to stand on top of their own tanks.

Finally, if you say that the wings count, but you can be under them because of the 1 inch rule (assuming you missed my above point showing the 1 inch rule doesnt apply) then what happens if you immoblize the valkyrie while you are under it. You must remove the flight stand, but doing so would have the wings definately illegally placed on top of whatever is underneath, be it friendly or enemy, as the wings and landing gear would be crushing someones models.

So in summary, the Valkyrie definately does not fit the current GW mold for vehicles, in the vein of drop pod door petals before it. My solution is to completely ignore the wings for everything, like you would ignore the wings on a non-vehicle model or the petals of an unfurled drop pod. This lets you move under/over the wings, this lets you have the wings hang off the board edge, and if you can only see the wing then you cant see the valkyrie. This pretty much fixes almost every problem there is.

People who I have discussed this with have only raised one complaint, namely that they feel the wings should count because they are 'there' or should count because they are afraid of not being able to see the valkyrie otherwise. To this, I say that the valkyrie is giagantic and elevated 8 inches off the table... show me a situation where the LOS to a valkyrie HINGES on the wings being targetable consistantly enough to warrent being forced to count the wings. I hate double standards, so saying 'well let the wings count for the things the opponent wants but not for everything else' is BS.

DevianID many things i'd like to take up with your view

First, as to the whole 'hull' thing... aircraft normally do not have hulls, they have wings and a fuselage. Thus, the stock GW definations about what can be seen for LOS applies about as throughly as for non-vehicles that do not have a humanoid body, such as a spore mine or tau drone. Where the targeting rules have failed, in the past we have always been forced to come to a compromise--so no one is happy hehe as the RAW can not be fully satisifed.

Fine I agree so far

As a side note, non-vehicle models with wings EXPLICITLY exclude wings as being targetable--despite the wing being an 'obvious' part of the body and the obvious ramifications of blowing a birds wings off in respect to the health of said bird. Thus, the argument can be made that wings are excluded from vehicles for the same reasons that they are excluded from non-vehicles.

ok'ish but i ask you if you foll that line of though Eldar skimmers become Much smaller (Hell there almost no Vyper left if you only count hull), Dreadnoughts technically have no arm or legs (its still not hull or turret) (makes a defiler quite small)

Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views. I have seen some people saying you can put a tank under a valkyrie. That is the same as stacking a rhino on top of a rhino. The rule 'No unit may occupy the same space' is not GW stating a principle of physics, namely that no 2 pieces of matter can occupy the same physical space (outside of quantum mechanics). I would love to see that game where the players had to look up the GW rule to assert that yes, the two tanks 'phasing' into each other and occuping the same space was indeed invalid.

Funny observations aside, puting something under a legal part of the valkyrie is the same as putting that vehicle under the flying base.

Also, note that there is no other restriction to being under/over a model other than not being able to occupy the same space. The 1 inch restriction applies only to enemy units in their movement phase, in the assault phase where the 1 inch rule is lifted you STILL can not occupy the same space as another model. AKA, you cant assault a rhino and stand on top of it with your assault move. Plus, the 1 inch rule only applies to enemy models, thus friendlies would be free to stand on top of their own tanks.

Thats a fine i agree with this opinuon but it contradicts your first point. Ether wings don't count or they do.

Finally, if you say that the wings count, but you can be under them because of the 1 inch rule (assuming you missed my above point showing the 1 inch rule doesnt apply) then what happens if you immoblize the valkyrie while you are under it. You must remove the flight stand, but doing so would have the wings definately illegally placed on top of whatever is underneath, be it friendly or enemy, as the wings and landing gear would be crushing someones models.

Ha if you can remove the flight stand if you can't it just floats there. Since these things are weighty, its getting securely glued in place

So in summary, the Valkyrie definately does not fit the current GW mold for vehicles, in the vein of drop pod door petals before it. My solution is to completely ignore the wings for everything, like you would ignore the wings on a non-vehicle model or the petals of an unfurled drop pod. This lets you move under/over the wings, this lets you have the wings hang off the board edge, and if you can only see the wing then you cant see the valkyrie. This pretty much fixes almost every problem there is.

In your opinion

People who I have discussed this with have only raised one complaint, namely that they feel the wings should count because they are 'there' or should count because they are afraid of not being able to see the valkyrie otherwise. To this, I say that the valkyrie is giagantic and elevated 8 inches off the table... show me a situation where the LOS to a valkyrie HINGES on the wings being targetable consistantly enough to warrent being forced to count the wings. I hate double standards, so saying 'well let the wings count for the things the opponent wants but not for everything else' is BS.

No we just wonder why you think the wing can't be targeted? Every other model if you can see part of it you can shoot it (excluding little twiddly bits) and if i can't see 50% it gets cover save

DevianID wrote:I hate double standards, so saying 'well let the wings count for the things the opponent wants but not for everything else' is BS.

What if the player with the Valkyrie and their opponent agree beforehand?

I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow the wings to be shot at, in exchange for say a compromise on deploying units and contesting objectives with the Valkryie's flight stand.

yeah,
you talk alot but have you read this thread?

DevianID wrote:...show me a situation where the LOS to a valkyrie HINGES on the wings being targetable consistantly enough to warrent being forced to count the wings...

Augustus on page 2 wrote:

Panic...

I meant a compromise on deploying within 2" of the hatch (which, if you include vertical distance, puts them in midair).


Also, I don't think using the wings of non-vehicle models is a valid comparison. That's nearly always in reference to biological wings, that could either fold up behind the model or be stretched out in the air. The wings of a Valkyrie are static. There's really only one way they're supposed to go on.

yeah,
plus I think the models they are refering to have wings as optional extras, daemon princes for example, but don't have the options in the box... so I could models massive great big dragon wings or tiny little fairy wings... I don't think they wanted to create a modeling for advantage situation...

In the situation where the one wing weapon on the valk can see around a wall, there are a few things.

One, in 3d (instead of the 2d top down) that brick wall would have to be, what, 12 inches tall and 12 inches wide, and completely solid (no windows). In short, a covered cinder block, right? In all my games, I have yet to see said cinderblock-sized terrain.

Two, that complaint, as others before me mentioned, has nothing to do with the Valkyrie specificly, and everything to do with the new rules for targeting and drawing LOS in 5th edition. Indeed it is possible for almost any unit, both vehicle and infantry, to be able to see and shoot a target, but not be seen in return.

As others have said, hull down tanks with the barrel sticking over a ruin or around a bend, can 'see' from the weapon barrel but cant be targeted as weapon barrels cant be shot at. For infantry, many windows through terrain that are not eye level will block the sheltering infantries 'eye's from seeing anything while not blocking the enemy from seeing an arm or torso.

Finally Panic, also note in your quote of me, I talk about consistancy... what is more consistantly going to cause a problem: the valk firing around a solid cinderblock-sized piece of terrain, or the Valk's huge wings completely dominating the table, preventing movement through them while not hindering any shooting from the guard and tanks underneath?

Imagine the area you could tankshock if the wings count!!!

As to concerns about the Eldar Grav Tanks... well I kind of have a hard time calling the front end of the grav tank 'wings'... are they described as wings somewhere in the eldar codex? I dont own that one.

As for where I contradict myself, Tri, its basicly to show why in my opinion wings shouldnt count... as if they did, you have the issues I list (among others).

By the way, what actual ingame problems would arise from not counting the wings, other than the unlikely situation where you can shoot around a corner? (not a new issue, nor a fault of only the valkyre)

Finally, I think choosing to ignore the rule that wings are explictly ignored for drawing LOS is close-minded. Yes, we all know that we use different targeting rules for vehicles and non-vehicles. However, as many people have pointed out, the Valkyrie, as an aircraft, has neither a hull nor a turret via any common defination of the word 'hull' and 'turret'. Thus explicitly by RAW, the Valkyrie has nothing to draw LOS to.

Coinsidently, this is the same as trying to draw LOS from a model with no eyes... the RAW says draw LOS from the eyes, some models with shooting attacks have no eyes, therefore by RAW they can not draw LOS to anything.

Now, we can compromise (which ensures no one is happy--everyone hates a compromise) and draw from the intent of LOS with non-vehicles, and not count the wings, or we can count the aircraft's fuselage as its hull (the closest analog to an aircraft's hull is its fuselage, which means you cant target the wings as wings arnt hull/fuselage), or we can count the entire model, wings and all. If we count the entire model, then we get all the issues such as being unable to disembark from any of the access points, et all.

The best option, of course, is to have 2 people discuss what's what before the game and come to a consensus, but in the event of a tourney such as the OP presents, finding a proper solution in the midst of a game simply isnt going to happen.

DevianID wrote:
As to concerns about the Eldar Grav Tanks... well I kind of have a hard time calling the front end of the grav tank 'wings'... are they described as wings somewhere in the eldar codex? I dont own that one.

I do, they're not mentioned as wing but by an amazing coincidence nether does the Valkyrie/ Vendetta. You have applied real world logic to the game and choose to call them wings because it is called an aircraft. I call them hull upon which weapons are mounted ... could also call them sponsons.

The hull is the outer body of a tank.

A falcon's "wings" are part of an armored body that holds equipment inside it. In that sense, whether they're wings is irrelevant, they're still part of a tank hull.

However, if you treat a Valkyrie like you would a tank, you end up with the fuselage having the same role as a tank's hull; it's well armored, and it protects what's inside it. The wings of the Valkyrie, however, are thin, with their "cargo" mounted on the outside. They're not a shell, or a husk, and thus they don't fit the definition of the word as well.

DevianID wrote:
Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views.

Warhammer 40,000 is a 3D game.

And as to your other points, did you seriously read the rest of the thread, or any of the other Valkyrie discussions on DakkaDakka?

DevianID wrote:
Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views.

you're also saying that infantry models inside of a ruin can't stand on a higher floor directly above each other?

@Devian Lets clear up a few things quickly. The valk/ vendetta isnt an aircraft, its a skimmer. ( in the fluff the valk is called an aircraft, but its also called a few other things -- and its defined as a skimmer in its entry) So applying aircraft definitions isnt terribly useful. Also, a the valk isnt a tank so dont worry about tank shocks, since it cant do that. And if the valk is immobilized and the stand removed there is no problem with enemy models being in contact with the hull .... models get into contact all the time during assaults.

Models on flying bases have always been a problem for assaults, the falcon/ wave serpent base is very difficult to move into base contact from the front of the model, since the stand is only under the "hull" (back portion) and the "wings" (front portion) hang far out from the base. Would this mean that eldar vehicles are immune to assault from the front?


Also, how does this term "wing" get applied to the hull extensions on the valk? The only time the word wing is used in the codex regarding the valk is when speaking about a unit/ wing of valks. To me the weapon hard points of the valk/ vedetta are clearly on the hull. If weapons hard points are not always part of the hull, then pardon me while I go move my las cannons onto the corners of my new 12" wide and 8" high dozer blade. If the eldar vehicles obviously dont have wings then just as obviously the valk doesnt have wings either. The IG codex never describes the valk as having wings.



Sliggoth

As far as I can tell, Eldar Skimmers do not have wings to discount. You can try and label them such all day long, but that's no more legitimate than calling them gravitational tuning forks.

Why is there any question about whether or not units can move underneith the wings. Remember that skimmers are considered to be hugging the ground, no matter how tall of a base they have. So if you are to assault a valk you move to touch any part of the vehicle, be it the wings, tail, hull, or any other part people want to claim is not really part of the model.

There are no rules to say that skimmers count as "hugging the ground."

None.

You are going to quote the line that says that you must set skimmers down on the table at the end of their move, but that does not mean you remove them from the base, as you are only allowed to remove them from their base if they are immobilized or wrecked. It simply means that you can't hold them 1 foot in the air for better LoS.

The rule for moving under the wings is the rule that says you can't come within 1" of an enemy unit, and for all vehicles you measure that 1" from the hull. Even if the wings count as "hull" (which I think they do) they are high enough off the table that you can move under them without coming 1" from them.

unless you're a titan

Orkeosaurus wrote:The hull is the outer body of a tank.

A falcon's "wings" are part of an armored body that holds equipment inside it. In that sense, whether they're wings is irrelevant, they're still part of a tank hull.

However, if you treat a Valkyrie like you would a tank, you end up with the fuselage having the same role as a tank's hull; it's well armored, and it protects what's inside it. The wings of the Valkyrie, however, are thin, with their "cargo" mounted on the outside. They're not a shell, or a husk, and thus they don't fit the definition of the word as well.

Lordhat wrote: As far as I can tell, Eldar Skimmers do not have wings to discount. You can try and label them such all day long, but that's no more legitimate than calling them gravitational tuning forks.

Firstly I'm not try to make Eldar Skimmers "wings" unshootable I'm just pointing out that it has as much right as the Valkyrie to call them wings.

Now rightly every ones gone "No its doesn't matter" , "Its Armoured " ect ect and basicly smashed the idea of elder Skimmers having wings.... Trouble is you can take all of those arguments and place them on to the Valkyrie which is my point ....

Nether has "wings" unless you label them as such and if you do they both have them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:
Also, how does this term "wing" get applied to the hull extensions on the valk? The only time the word wing is used in the codex regarding the valk is when speaking about a unit/ wing of valks. To me the weapon hard points of the valk/ vedetta are clearly on the hull. If weapons hard points are not always part of the hull, then pardon me while I go move my las cannons onto the corners of my new 12" wide and 8" high dozer blade. If the eldar vehicles obviously dont have wings then just as obviously the valk doesnt have wings either. The IG codex never describes the valk as having wings.

ha thanks my point exactly ...

Tri wrote:

DevianID wrote:As to concerns about the Eldar Grav Tanks... well I kind of have a hard time calling the front end of the grav tank 'wings'... are they described as wings somewhere in the eldar codex? I dont own that one.

I do, they're not mentioned as wing but by an amazing coincidence nether does the Valkyrie/ Vendetta. You have applied real world logic to the game and choose to call them wings because it is called an aircraft. I call them hull upon which weapons are mounted ... could also call them sponsons.

And according to the rulebook, sponsons are not part of the hull, and thus can not be targeted.

whitedragon wrote:

DevianID wrote:Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views.

Warhammer 40,000 is a 3D game.

This point is often arguable, as in right now. With the exception of terrain and models occupying different levels of that terrain. Skimmers have been (in my experience) represented to occupy the area that they cover on the level they are placed. So in an open field a skimmer would occupy to the ground, place one on top of a ruin, and they occupy to the level of the ruin they were placed, but not above or below.

whitedragon wrote:And as to your other points, did you seriously read the rest of the thread, or any of the other Valkyrie discussions on DakkaDakka?

Why do people like to ask this? This thread alone has spread out so much and resolved practically nothing that is has brought up, how can you even think about trying the throw this at someone unless you are just trying to be a prick? I am not calling you a prick, as you probably haven't realized the prickish nature of your comment.

@ Sliggoth : Hush, the grown-ups are talking.

The best point thus far about moving under models is about what happens when the Valkyrie becomes immobile. Models can not become trapped beneath, as they are not supposed to be occupying the same space, or else you could in fact have models standing on top of tanks, or tanks on top of tanks, or skimmers on top of tanks or other skimmers..... see where this is going? There is no 'underneath' other vehicles, that would be occupying the same space.

@ Tri : Yeah, those swooping sections of the Eldar grav tanks aren't wings, what with all the anti-grav pads and guts in them. The valk wings don't have anything like that, they don't even have an airfoil or raised section to help them aloft, and as potential as those spinny things at the end are for being the lifting agents for the Valkyrie.... I am still not convinced. It seems that Valkyries are held aloft across the battlefield either by some other means contained in the hull (not the wings) or by a telescoping translucent X shaped support that slides along the surface of the ground. Oh these grim, dark days and the many wonders that exist in them.

Quite simply, the outline of the Falcon/Wave Serpent has been accepted for nigh twenty years now, or at least for the over ten I have been playing. To start arguing about it, or how it applies to new models, is simply impractical from a 'working with GW' stand point. The Valkyrie has broken all the rules for vehicle design that GW has worked with. There is nothing like it in the standard game and we have to re-think how to apply rules to it. After playing with it for a while now, simply counting the wings as untargetable is the simplest conclusion, rather than counting them as part of the 'hull' and dealing with the rammifications from there, such as models occupying blah blah blah, more arguments.

Skinnattittar You have completely missed my point ... no where in ether does the word wing come up and it madness that ether should be treated differently. Unless defined other wise all of a vehicle is Hull. To play any other way is to ask for trouble as people define there own rules.

@ Tri : Yeah, those swooping sections of the Eldar grav tanks aren't wings, what with all the anti-grav pads and guts in them. The valk wings don't have anything like that, they don't even have an airfoil or raised section to help them aloft, and as potential as those spinny things at the end are for being the lifting agents for the Valkyrie

that's fluff not rules ... and if you want a fluff fight ... Valkyrie wing thruster are vitally important with out them the Valkyrie is prone to rolling over a crashing.

Tri wrote:Skinnattittar You have completely missed my point ... no where in ether does the word wing come up and it madness that ether should be treated differently. Unless defined other wise all of a vehicle is Hull. To play any other way is to ask for trouble as people define there own rules.

Wings are defined only when attached to non-vehicles.

Even Apoc (with bona fide flyers) does not touch the term. LOS is to (and from) the model.

Any other use is RAI.

shrug

@skin Thanks for ignoring my arguements and instead just making a personal attack, very adult behaviour indeed
And could you quote the rules page where it says sponsons cant be targetted?

And once again, there is nothing in the codex about the valk having wings. The valk certainly may look as if it has aircraft wings, but in 40k the only defined wings are the biological wings that various infantry and MC can have. People use the term wings to describe the hull extensions of the valk but it is completely incorrect to use the term "wing" in 40k terms. In the 40k rules we are told to ignore wings for purposes of determining LOS, has anyone considered that perhaps GW didnt use the term wings for the valk on purpose?

For the shooting at vehicles rule we are allowed to ignore a vehicle's gun barrels, antennas and decorative banner poles. The flimsiest of the flimsy parts of the vehicle in other words. By RAW we certainly cant ignore something as massive as the valks "wings" and since these said "wings" cover a tremendously larger space than any barrel, antenna or pole it would appear that RAI would also not let us ignore them as well.

As skinnattitar so helpfully pointed out we already have firm precedence for counting all of a vehicle's main body components as part of the hull, we have been counting the eldar "wings" as part of the hull for a decade. This would that RAW, RAI and game playing precedence all would have us count the valk as having a very large hull.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:And could you quote the rules page where it says sponsons cant be targetted?

And could YOU quote the rules page where it says I can't coat your models in Gasoline and Set fire to them?

The Rules don't work like that. Just wanted to point that out.

Skinnattittar wrote:This point is often arguable, as in right now. With the exception of terrain and models occupying different levels of that terrain. Skimmers have been (in my experience) represented to occupy the area that they cover on the level they are placed. So in an open field a skimmer would occupy to the ground, place one on top of a ruin, and they occupy to the level of the ruin they were placed, but not above or below.

They occupy the space of the model - that is INHERENTLY 3D. The *entire game is 3D* with some 2D abstractions where it helps simplify (e.g. flamers in ruins). You have absolutely NO rules quotes to back up that it is a 2D "space" from top down (which is what - a series of 2D planes that oinly exist from top down? the rules and the english language disagree with you)

Skinnattittar wrote:
The best point thus far about moving under models is about what happens when the Valkyrie becomes immobile. Models can not become trapped beneath, as they are not supposed to be occupying the same space, or else you could in fact have models standing on top of tanks, or tanks on top of tanks, or skimmers on top of tanks or other skimmers..... see where this is going? There is no 'underneath' other vehicles, that would be occupying the same space.

So you ignored the "*IF POSSIBLE* remove the flying base" part of the rules - Breaking a rule (placing models on top of other models) would certianly mean it is not possible.

Underneath another vehicle is exactly that. To occupy the same space as another model you must either sit on top of it or you must be inside it, e.g. a head poking in through a hatch.

The game is 3D. It is played with 3D models, it is played with 3D terrain. TLOS emphasises the 3D nature of the game. TOp down is gone gone gone, say goodbye to 4th ed.

The trouble comes when you try to apply strict labeling to a term designed as a catch-all.

If wings aren't 'hull' - then you can't target a Dreadnought at all - they are a vehicle with no 'hull' - they only have legs, a sarcophagus and arms.

I'm not sure where the argument against being underneath it is coming from - the BGB says you may not move into or through the space occupied by the 'hull' of a vehicle, i.e. everything bounded by the 'hull'. In other words, you have to move around them.

Consider that the 'hull' is 3-dimensional, and continues underneath the vehicle too, so it's as valid to have a model underneath a Valkyrie as it is to have a model standing next to it, as neither model is within 1 inch of the 'hull'.

It's also been pointed out before, but it's worth mentioning again: If it's not possible to take a wrecked/immobilised skimmer of it's stand (such as in the case of being assaulted, since taking it off would displace the assaulting unit - it being glued on is only an example of the possible reasons, albeit the most common one) then, as the BGB says: "don’t worry about it. The skimmer’s anti-grav field is obviously still working"

EDIT: Dammit - Ninja'd by Nosferatu

Gwar! wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:And could you quote the rules page where it says sponsons cant be targetted?

And could YOU quote the rules page where it says I can't coat your models in Gasoline and Set fire to them?

The Rules don't work like that. Just wanted to point that out.

=== start comment at gwar ===
Not a great argument there gwar.
=== end comment at gwar ====


Sponsons are never classed as being being different from hull.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:And could you quote the rules page where it says sponsons cant be targetted?

And could YOU quote the rules page where it says I can't coat your models in Gasoline and Set fire to them?

The Rules don't work like that. Just wanted to point that out.

Not a great argument there gwar.

Sponsons are never classed as being being different from hull.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Gwar was claiming that sponsons cannot be targeted, but was simply pointing out the logical fallacy in the argument.

willydstyle wrote:There are no rules to say that skimmers count as "hugging the ground."

None.

You are going to quote the line that says that you must set skimmers down on the table at the end of their move, but that does not mean you remove them from the base, as you are only allowed to remove them from their base if they are immobilized or wrecked. It simply means that you can't hold them 1 foot in the air for better LoS.

The rule for moving under the wings is the rule that says you can't come within 1" of an enemy unit, and for all vehicles you measure that 1" from the hull. Even if the wings count as "hull" (which I think they do) they are high enough off the table that you can move under them without coming 1" from them.

Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

willydstyle wrote:I could be wrong, but I don't think that Gwar was claiming that sponsons cannot be targeted, but was simply pointing out the logical fallacy in the argument.

A cookie for you good sir!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

Fluff != Rules

augustus5 wrote:

Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

GIven their base is in difficult terrain they have definitely moved into the terrain, therefore requiring a DT test.

The entire game is 3D. Think of it that way and a lot of things make sense. It is not a 2D, top down game.

Gwar! wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:And could you quote the rules page where it says sponsons cant be targetted?

And could YOU quote the rules page where it says I can't coat your models in Gasoline and Set fire to them?

The Rules don't work like that. Just wanted to point that out.

If you had reread Skinnattittar's post, you would have seen that the statement Sliggoth was asking for a citation on was:

And according to the rulebook, sponsons are not part of the hull, and thus can not be targeted.

In that context, what Sliggoth said was perfectly valid, if worded a little indirectly. I myself never noticed it saying in the rulebook that sponsons were never part of the hull, so I'd be interested in where it says that as well.

Back to the original situation- The shot was on target but off of the table because your opponent ended his turn with the vehicle illegally placed.

I would work from the point that two wrongs don't make a right.

I would have done as you and not have counted the hit.

I then would have asked that my opponent remove the Valk as destroyed or at least put it into reserve for ending his turn with it illegally placed.

Probably would have asked for a ruling at that point if he argued the case.

Used to be at some tournies a rule that any model that was illegally placed or partially off table at the end of the players turn was counted as destroyed. Is there still such a rule?

Off-topic: Not saying the "wings" count or not. Just issues that I have with the points brought up and clarifications I'd like to make.

Now as far as the argument I've seen some exaggerations proffered(that I'd like to correct) as reasons to not count the "wings".
'Natter and IGvamp, I served my tour in the US Air Force bout 20 years ago.

'Natter When I served it was called a fuselage. The Air force and the military in general are kinda picky about nomenclature. Also where is the fuel for the aircraft carried? In its wings. Where are the control surfaces that keep the aircaft controlable? The wings. Hits to aircraft wings are very serious and any attempt to argue other wise is absurd.

Now I, proffer that using Normal aircraft is not the best correlation to the Valk. The thing that makes a Valk have a Hull is that it is in their unit description. The logic that supports GW stating this is that the Valk is a spacefaring craft, which do have hulls. This is likely why they where actually listed as having a hull in their unit description.

So they do have a hull. The fuselage argument stops where it was stated under the unit description of having a hull.

IGVamp-When F-16s are hit with that much damage the pilot ejects. "If" (big if) he doesn't, the aircraft is no longer capable of combat and would leave the theater of operations immediately. Has to do with that the F-16 is an unstable aeronautically for increased combat agility, and the only thing keeping them in the air is its flight computer constantly adjusting the surfaces of the wings/control surfaces to keep the aircraft stable.
F-15, was designed before this tech and its delta lifting body design does help to make it resistant to damage but still suffers from fuel in the wing issues and requires the control surface of the wing to fly(Even the strike eagle).
Now the A-10 Can absolutely absorb that much damage and is closer for comparison. Sure the A-10 doesn't carry passengers but both are designed for low-level operations and are armoured against small arms fire.

When talking about thrust keeping something aloft that doestn't have wings, rotors, or VTOL you are talking about "Lifting Body" designs. Something not designed into the F-16 and only in a limited way into the F-15. Their wings may be small but they have front and rear flaps to provide extra lift when needed. They deploy at low speeds and and in combat, then receed into the wings for high speed flight and fuel conservation.

Now by the "Fluff" the Valk/Vendetta does indeed have VTOL so the best aircraft to use for comparison would be the Black Hawk Helicopter mixed with a bit of the Harrier . This would make the "wings" into oversized sponsons.

On- Topic: After examining, and more accurately defining, a real world correlation to the Valk/Vendetta I will posit that there is an argument that the things sticking out are not wings but sponsons

This is supported by that they are not called wings anywhere in their unit listing but there is an obscure refference about taking sponsons.
They are not wings according to RAW.

They are not clearly stated as sponson but one of the Vehicle Options is for a pair Sonsons armed with Heavy bolters.
This lends toward an"Implied" as sponsons

This may or may not help and the answer won't be definitive untill there is a Faq/eratta.

I would lean towards the thought that damage to a sponson could detonate ammunition or at least destroy the weapon but I'll sit back and listen to the wisdom of others at this point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

GIven their base is in difficult terrain they have definitely moved into the terrain, therefore requiring a DT test.

The entire game is 3D. Think of it that way and a lot of things make sense. It is not a 2D, top down game.

I don't think I've ever contested that this game is played in three diminsions. Please reread my post that you quoted and show me where I made that assumption and I'll apologize for thinking in 2d terms for you. Otherwise...

focusedfire wrote:Back to the original situation- The shot was on target but off of the table because your opponent ended his turn with the vehicle illegally placed.

I would work from the point that two wrongs don't make a right.

I would have done as you and not have counted the hit.

I then would have asked that my opponent remove the Valk as destroyed or at least put it into reserve for ending his turn with it illegally placed.

Probably would have asked for a ruling at that point if he argued the case.

Used to be at some tournies a rule that any model that was illegally placed or partially off table at the end of the players turn was counted as destroyed. Is there still such a rule?

To my knowledge that is still a rule, however I feel it is poor to enforce it after you have begun your own turn, and poor sportsmanship to wait for your opponent to declare an end of their movement and shooting phase to ask it removed as destroyed. This is a game, not a cut throat sport where there is money to be made, in fact, no money should ever be made of playing this game in my opinion. It stops being fun and then I just become mean..... this game is VERY easy to manipulate, especially others, even those that think they are impenetrable to manipulation can be fooled/tricked/swayed. It is not something I like to do, as I usually feel as if I stole the fun form the other person, rolling up their army like a quickly cut tendon... that was too much grim dark.

Basically, if you notice they have mildly misplaced their vehicle, let it be, if they are doing so to flamboyantly and intentionally gain a tactical advantage, yeah, fry their asses like a piece of bacon. Bottom line, sportsmanship and fun are what make this game worth playing, don't be TFG trying to cram rules down people's throat or proclaiming that you know what GW's intentions were for the Valkyrie's wings. Compromises suck because nobody is happy with the results and that ruins it for both players. So I understand why a ruling is needed for Valkyrie wings. At the same time having the Valkyrie being the largest model in basic 40k games with relatively weak armor, zooming about with near nowhere to drop droops, hold over terrain or other units, because if you get immobilized you'll have some big complications, just seems like a big kill-joy and makes the Valkyrie, and otherwise fun new unit for the Guard, that much less likely to see table time, which is really the only good boil down reason for people to oppose just letting the wings slide as 'decorative' or 'non-hull' as much as that may or may-not appeal to their sense of order in the world of WH40k, a point itself that is entirely laughable and ludicrous.

EDIT : P.S. ; I am really getting tired of writing and reading text blocks....

focusedfire wrote:

They are not clearly stated as sponson but one of the Vehicle Options is for a pair Sonsons armed with Heavy bolters.
This lends toward an"Implied" as sponsons

This may or may not help and the answer won't be definitive untill there is a Faq/eratta.

I would lean towards the thought that damage to a sponson could detonate ammunition or at least destroy the weapon but I'll sit back and listen to the wisdom of others at this point.

well, if you look at the model there seem to be two locations on the "body" for those sponsons

otherwise it doesn't seem to specify where those things are placed on the model....

Skinnattittar wrote:

EDIT : P.S. ; I am really getting tired of writing and reading text blocks....

If your tired of reading then don't. If your going to, then look a little more closely at what has been written.

1)My reply to the original point was in essence, First be a good sport. Second, ask your opponent to do same (Offer compromise) if he doesn't offer. Third, if your oppent insists upon being TFG then call for a ruling(maybe even dock his sportsmanship for not offering in the first place).

Didn't comment about letting your opponent know he had misplaced a piece because of the original post stating that both didn't realise until it came up(after the shot and alsready too late).

2)Gave the path for arriving that the Valk does not have wings by RAW. Doesn't matter what the box the model came in says, this was just purely an in-game RAW observation. I was in essence supporting your stance through the use of a more accurate corrolary.

3)Did not make attempt a rules interpretation but just attempt to clarify the Nomenclature. Then stated what I leaned towards but did not offer such as a definitive answer. Rather, I proffered that this will be contested until there is an errata.


@Lacross- There is also the discription that the access points are on the "side" of the Hull. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be counted, just that in friendly games it needs to be discussed before hand. If your the IG player, be a good sport and point out the issues that you are aware of and ask what your opponent is comfortable with.

In tournaments then it is the organizers responsiblity. If they don't step up and do their job then note such and make sure the organizers know how you feel. If they have left you hanging in this manner then reffer to what I suggest for friendly games.

I'm hoping for a faq by Christmas. Maybe if the model start to recieve complaints based on this issue and sales dropped a bit then GW will express an overnight answer.

I think counting any illegally placed model as destroyed is a good way to turn a tournament into a screaming match.

I mean, when you have a Land Raider full of Terminators near the side of the board, and the edge of the Land Raider is rounded and above the table, and the edge of the table is a little worn, and you don't know if your opponent bumped the Land Raider a little when he measured it for shooting, you've got a powder keg ready to go off if your opponent tries to "call" you on it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think counting any illegally placed model as destroyed is a good way to turn a tournament into a screaming match.

I mean, when you have a Land Raider full of Terminators near the side of the board, and the edge of the Land Raider is rounded and above the table, and the edge of the table is a little worn, and you don't know if your opponent bumped the Land Raider a little when he measured it for shooting, you've got a powder keg ready to go off if your opponent tries to "call" you on it.

I think it's worth noting that I have never, not once, seen this as a house rule in any tournament.

I have heard of it before, but never seen it done, probably because it is preposterous unless one player is doing so intentionally to gain some sort of exaggerated advantage.

When I play, and it turns out something had been done that wasn't supposed to, by write of rules, and both players have had full disclosure (I find it completely reasonable to assume your opponent has a firm and total grasp of the rules, if not, total right to ask for a moment to consult a rulebook or codex, even if you know for a fact a rule is a certain way), then it must be allowed to pass. So in the case where a player mistakenly places part of his model off the table, as in the Original Post, and the opposing player made no comment, then that model may stay there until the next movement phase where it must be corrected.

If the opposing player pointed this out to the owning player, and that player refuses, then there is an issue and I (as a referee) would count that vehicle destroyed. In a case where it is obvious the opposing player was trying to be manipulative and abusive intentionally, I would also count it as destroyed, after the fact.

Sportsmanship and fun are what I always try to encourage others when rules disagreements come up. I go so far as when I find myself trouncing an opponent, which I know is never fun having been trounced enough in my time, I will try and offer them a chance to end the battle, or I will put a platoon in a poor spot for them to chew on and have a little victory. Even if it costs me a friendly game, nobody likes to lose.

Out of curiosity, I had a look in the BGB to see what it has to say about overhanging models - and I can't find anything except for a mention when fleeing models exit the table. Am I missing something?

Can people who say units can go under wings explain what happens when the Valk is immobilized and didn't go flat out?

jbalthis wrote:Can people who say units can go under wings explain what happens when the Valk is immobilized and didn't go flat out?

Errm, just like always? It just stays on its flight stick, just like every other skimmer with a glued on stick or who cannot remove their base for some reason.

jbalthis wrote:Can people who say units can go under wings explain what happens when the Valk is immobilized and didn't go flat out?

If you'd read the bit which said "IF POSSIBLE" I would say it is fairly obvious what would happen to it.

I don't anyone who glues the base onto their valkyrie. So in all cases in my experience it would be possible to dismount it. So it is possible, so what would happen?

jbalthis wrote:I don't anyone who glues the base onto their valkyrie. So in all cases in my experience it would be possible to dismount it. So it is possible, so what would happen?

Read again. "IF POSSIBLE". If it is not possible because of models underneath, you don't remove the base. Having the base glued on is NOT the only time it might not be possible to remove the base.

How do you measure 1 inch from enemy units? From the base or from the aircraft top down view?

jbalthis wrote:How do you measure 1 inch from enemy units? From the base or from the aircraft top down view?

Take a tape measure, measure from the base or hull of unit a to the closest part (hull or base) on the Valk in 3D space.

So lets say my base is 1 inch away of a enemy troop which has units under the nose and wings. What happens when the valkyrie wrecks?

jbalthis wrote:So lets say my base is 1 inch away of a enemy troop which has units under the nose and wings. What happens when the valkyrie wrecks?

Read the section on Skimmers again please.

IF POSSIBLE remove the base, if not, leave it on the base as a floating wreck. If you cannot remove the base because it would land on other models, then you don't remove it.

What about explosion rules?

jbalthis wrote:What about explosion rules?

What about them? Try reading the rulebook rather than asking people to spoonfeed you it.

...you could just not answer

Last post in this thread I promise.

I really would like to read your interpretation of an exploding valk and how it contradicts with a floating wreck.

My end solution; Personally I'm going to play the valk whichever way the opponent will agree to because too many people seem to disagree about the basics. Until GW comes out with a FAQ this subject is going to get beat to death. I obviously disagree with some things people have posted in this thread but I feel I understand more about why people are argueing certain points. I understand ya'lls points and can argue for them too. I guess it comes down to personally preference.

jbalthis wrote:I really would like to read your interpretation of an exploding valk and how it contradicts with a floating wreck.

Now you are not making any sense. When a Vehicle is Wrecked, it it left in place. If it is a skimmer, IF POSSIBLE, remove the flight stand, if not, leave it.

When a Vehicle Explodes, the vehicle is removed completely.

I mentioned this earlier, but I suppose I will restate. The rule saying you cant come within 1 inch of an enemy model has nothing to do with units illegally under a valkyrie.

The rule you are looking for is 'No units can occupy the same space.'

Gwar, if you were right (which I think you are not) that the reason you can put a unit under a valk is because they are more than 1 inch away, then what about in the assault phase? Can you jump on top of the valk's wing since the 1 inch rule is lifted in the assault phase? Can you move on top of the valk's base now? Can you put the flying base on top of a friendly rhino since their is NO one inch rule for friendlies?

In effect, what you are saying with respect to 3d space is that it is acceptable to stack friendly rhinos on top of each other. Maybe that is not what you intended, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Also, the fact that its not possible to remove the flight stand because their are models (illegally) sharing the EXACT same space on the board, is a joke. I dont know how you can argue that with a straight face. The whole 'the game is played in 3 dimensions' gets old fast when you have a flat 2d board you play the game on.

But meh, maybe you like stacking rhinos on top of each other, since they are not sharing the same 'space' thanks to the laws of nature that prevent matter from occuping the same space. Good of GW to print that rule to clarify that two objects can not occupy the same space, im sure thats what they ment.

DevianID wrote:I mentioned this earlier, but I suppose I will restate. The rule saying you cant come within 1 inch of an enemy model has nothing to do with units illegally under a valkyrie.

The rule you are looking for is 'No units can occupy the same space.'

Gwar, if you were right (which I think you are not) that the reason you can put a unit under a valk is because they are more than 1 inch away, then what about in the assault phase? Can you jump on top of the valk's wing since the 1 inch rule is lifted in the assault phase? Can you move on top of the valk's base now? Can you put the flying base on top of a friendly rhino since their is NO one inch rule for friendlies?

In effect, what you are saying with respect to 3d space is that it is acceptable to stack friendly rhinos on top of each other. Maybe that is not what you intended, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Also, the fact that its not possible to remove the flight stand because their are models (illegally) sharing the EXACT same space on the board, is a joke. I dont know how you can argue that with a straight face. The whole 'the game is played in 3 dimensions' gets old fast when you have a flat 2d board you play the game on.

But meh, maybe you like stacking rhinos on top of each other, since they are not sharing the same 'space' thanks to the laws of nature that prevent matter from occuping the same space. Good of GW to print that rule to clarify that two objects can not occupy the same space, im sure thats what they ment.

Please, try knowing the rules before posting. No you cannot put the flying base on top of a friendly model because no models base may occupy the same space as another models base or hull, even friendlies. The rest of your post I refuse to read as you exhibit not even the faintest hint of rules understanding.

Wow, way to say EXACTLY what I said, namely no units can occupy the same space. Except, you are still arguing that a valkyrie can be on top of another model, when YOU KNOW THEY CANT.

Thus, YOU have failed 'the rulz' and are agreeing that what you said earlier about units being under the valk's hull was actually false. Perhaps you should read my posts, verbose as they are, before denouncing them.

Above a model is not occupying the same space.
If it were, you would not be able to use ruins.
The Space occupied by a model is (unsurprisingly) the actual Space taken up by the model, not some Abstract 2D representation, considering 40k is a 3D game. The valk is on a Flight stand, and is thus able to occupy space above another model. A Rhino is not, so it cannot.

If above a model is ok, then what about a rhino directly above another rhino? What you are saying makes no sense.

I think you have confused 'occupy' with 'touching.' Two models are allowed to touch--base to base contact for example.

The rules make a stipulation that no 2 units can occupy the same space on the board. This does not mean 3d space, this means 2d board space. If the rule was for 3d space, then you can put a rhino on top of a rhino, because while they are touching, they are not occuping the same space (due to the laws of physics they cant).

My talk of rhino's under rhino's is a logical equivlent to a rhino under a valkyrie. You dont like it, cause we all know rhinos cant be on top of rhinos, but your talk of a unit under the hull of a valkyrie, thanks to a flying base, is just as preposterous.

Also, show me the rule in the rule book to back up your comment "The valk is on a Flight stand, and is thus able to occupy space above another model."

Show me the rule to backup your comment.

Also, you forget toy must always place models back onto the table or terrain, you cannot leave them on top of another model or floating in thin air.

You are trying to say that the rule lets you do something, the onus of proof is on you.

As you already say you know the rule that says a rhino can not be on top of a rhino (despite the 2 rhinos not sharing the same 3d space, due to the laws of physics), show how a valkyrie's hull on top of a rhino is different. The rules for skimmers pretty clearly say that you can move over units, but can not end on top of them.

And the rules for 'Ruins' are an exception that allows models to be underneath each other when on different levels--as we are not discussing ruins this does not support your position.

Gwar check your PM.

It specifically states you cannot put models on top of other models, they are treated as impossible terrain.

The game is specifically, consistently reiterated as a real 3d game played with 3d models. You may play with no terrain on entirely flat boards, my one has hills (3d terrain), buildings and ruins. You measure in 3d (except for flamers, which guess what ARE AN EXCEPTION to allow an easier abstraction)

The onus of proof is on you to show that you cannot place models more than 1" away from enemy models, and you must PROVE that this measurement is only in 2D space.

You can't do so, but try it. This has been argued before now, in the other big Valk thread, and the conclusion was that this game is 3D. Earth shattering I know.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It specifically states you cannot put models on top of other models, they are treated as impossible terrain.

The game is specifically, consistently reiterated as a real 3d game played with 3d models. You may play with no terrain on entirely flat boards, my one has hills (3d terrain), buildings and ruins. You measure in 3d (except for flamers, which guess what ARE AN EXCEPTION to allow an easier abstraction)

The onus of proof is on you to show that you cannot place models more than 1" away from enemy models, and you must PROVE that this measurement is only in 2D space.

You can't do so, but try it. This has been argued before now, in the other big Valk thread, and the conclusion was that this game is 3D. Earth shattering I know.

I agree with Nosferau101. The onus is on YOU to prove it, not me, as the rules actually back up my view.

DevianID wrote:You are trying to say that the rule lets you do something, the onus of proof is on you.

As you already say you know the rule that says a rhino can not be on top of a rhino (despite the 2 rhinos not sharing the same 3d space, due to the laws of physics), show how a valkyrie's hull on top of a rhino is different. The rules for skimmers pretty clearly say that you can move over units, but can not end on top of them.

And the rules for 'Ruins' are an exception that allows models to be underneath each other when on different levels--as we are not discussing ruins this does not support your position.

There are seven pages of quotes.

That said: Page 3 "Measuring Distances" lets you know to use the hull or the base.
Page 71 also has a section "Measuring Distances" that lets you know to ignore the base except when assaulting - Measure from the hull. (Note: one is still allowed to measure to/from the hull during assaults, it is simply no longer the ONLY part available).

Right under that (also on page 71) is the fun rule: "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either." It goes on to say that the skimmer must be set down on the table. Interesting. It does not say "cannot end their move above, or near" - just not "on top of". So long as the skimmer is not set on the top of the model, it can certainly be above it.

(note: the immobilized thing has been beaten to death as well - "if possible" ftw)

If you want to ask about rhinos - this is the wrong thread ( though I daresay it will be answered here anyway).

kirsanth wrote:If you want to ask about rhinos - this is the wrong thread ( though I daresay it will be answered here anyway).

We did answer it, and you hit the nail on the head. Above != On top of.

I guess I fail to see how 'above' and 'on top of' are different... You all agree that you cant put anything on top of another model, but how is something that is above another thing (a valkyrie above an infantry) not considered on top of (a valkyrie on top of an infantry).

DevianID wrote:I guess I fail to see how 'above' and 'on top of' are different... You all agree that you cant put anything on top of another model, but how is something that is above another thing (a valkyrie above an infantry) not considered on top of (a valkyrie on top of an infantry).

Because of the fact that a) the game is played in 3 dimension and b) the English language.

DevianID wrote:I guess I fail to see how 'above' and 'on top of' are different... You all agree that you cant put anything on top of another model, but how is something that is above another thing (a valkyrie above an infantry) not considered on top of (a valkyrie on top of an infantry).

On Top Implies that the models have been physically placed on top of one another (i.e. Rhino over Rhino). Above, means, well, above (Valkyrie, Fliers, Skimmers with a Tall Base etc)

jbalthis wrote:I guess becuase I work with aircrafts it makes more sense to me. But a hull isn't a wing.

I'm just trying to establish what a hull actually is on a valkyrie. And once that's established, then the rest of the rules should be applied.

A hull is "the body of a ship"
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage A fuselage is the body of an aircraft. Also having done some research on aircrafts, hull refers to the body of an aircraft.

It was pretty funny when I asked about 10 marines this question. We sat around for about 15 minutes debating and googling what a hull on an aircraft was. One guy even went so far as to grab a hull of an aircraft and show me. LOL.

Having a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and having looked at the model, I agree that these wings are not part of this fuselage, but wings (or flying surfaces, to be techincal) can be part of the fuselage if constructed to share structure. I would say this applies for Fire Prisms.

I am willing to work with the idea that hull = fuselage, though I do not like that usage.

Hull in this instance means Fuselage and Wings.

Well I got into this topic to try and provide some insight, and have hit a wall of semantics. Like the above, where apparently the defination of hull has changed to mean wings and fuselage--despite what the dictionary and people in the aeronautical field have said. I mean, who does the dictionary think it is to 'define' what something is, hehe?

Also, people seem to feel that a valkyrie that is above a model is not both on top of that model and on top of the table directly underneath that model?

Somehow we lost sight that the entire point is to make the Valkyrie, which does not fit the conventions of RAW, playable. A valkyrie, by standard definations, does not have a hull. A valkyrie looks like an aircraft, and aircraft have wings and a fuselage--not hulls.

Also, people are arguing that a rhino above a rhino is different than a valkyrie above a rhino. That is pretty much gonna have to be my cue that double standards are being used by people, and they dont want to see anything different. If thats the case, then what is the point of engaging in logical discourse?

DevianID wrote:Well I got into this topic to try and provide some insight, and have hit a wall of semantics. Like the above, where apparently the defination of hull has changed to mean wings and fuselage--despite what the dictionary and people in the aeronautical field have said. I mean, who does the dictionary think it is to 'define' what something is, hehe?

Also, people seem to feel that a valkyrie that is above a model is not both on top of that model and on top of the table directly underneath that model?

Somehow we lost sight that the entire point is to make the Valkyrie, which does not fit the conventions of RAW, playable. A valkyrie, by standard definations, does not have a hull. A valkyrie looks like an aircraft, and aircraft have wings and a fuselage--not hulls.

Also, people are arguing that a rhino above a rhino is different than a valkyrie above a rhino. That is pretty much gonna have to be my cue that double standards are being used by people, and they dont want to see anything different. If thats the case, then what is the point of engaging in logical discourse?

Because Gwar is basing his point on the in-game definition of "hull" which is pretty much any part of a vehicle which is not a minor detail.

If you claim that no unit may exist under the wings of a valkyrie... well how exactly to you manage to assault one from anywhere but the front then?

Saying "I'm right but nobody else understands" is not a classy way out of a rules discussion, BTW.

willydstyle wrote:Because Gwar is basing his point on the in-game definition of "hull" which is pretty much any part of a vehicle which is not a minor detail.

If you claim that no unit may exist under the wings of a valkyrie... well how exactly to you manage to assault one from anywhere but the front then?

Saying "I'm right but nobody else understands" is not a classy way out of a rules discussion, BTW.

QFT. I find that Appeals to Authority and Personal Attacks are the last refuge of someone who knows they have been defeated but has no wish to admit it.

And once again, remember that the valk is not an aircraft in 40k terms. It is a skimmer and as such it indeed does have a hull instead of fuselage and wings. The only wings that 40k defines are the appendages that some infantry and MC can have.

The real world and 40k do overlap, as does the real world and aeronautics. But words in 40k do not mean the same thing that they mean in other specialized fields, and all too often 40k words do not have the same meaning as their general definition in the real world. We have to deal with the contexts that GW has spun around words over the years, and the definitions that they give us.


Sliggoth

kirsanth wrote:Wings are defined only when attached to non-vehicles.

Even Apoc (with bona fide flyers) does not touch the term. LOS is to (and from) the model.

Any other use is RAI.

shrug

DevianID wrote:Also, people are arguing that a rhino above a rhino is different than a valkyrie above a rhino. That is pretty much gonna have to be my cue that double standards are being used by people, and they dont want to see anything different. If thats the case, then what is the point of engaging in logical discourse?

Erm, no.

"on top of" means physically placed on top of another model. Above means there is a space in between youself and the object you are above.

You are on top of a building, but above the ground, all at the same time.

It isn't double standards, just your inability to realise the game is in 3 dimensions. Looking from above is treating the game in two dimensions - you only do that in specific cases where it tells you to do so. Measuring distances is not one of those occasions.

I kind of see what Devian is saying. I dont see how the Valkyrie being partly over a rhino is any different than a rhino being on top of a rhino. Someone had a nifty Tzeentch rhino that floats - does that mean it can be "above" other rhinos? Or are people looking at it this way because the Valk is an airplane and a rhino is a tank? Skimmers are no different than anything else at the end of movement.

I think the field should be considered 2d looking down from a birds eye view. Aside from ruins, which have specific rules, no unit should be overlapping another, nor should they be off the table at the end of your movement turn. Because of this, I feel that a unit should be able to assault the valkyrie as if it were flat on the table, meaning I can assault it from a few inches away from its base as long as Im directly next to, say, the wing (but below it).

Seems to me this would make the most sense.

I am not saying I am right and no one understands. I am saying that the rules are flawed, do not cover the variation present across the multitude of 40k armies, and that some concessions are necessary.

My original post was that the simplest way to deal with the issues found in the valk is simply to ignore the wings all together--which is how you can actually assault the darn things without occuping the same space as another model.

You know, these concessions are kind of like how the petals of a drop pod dont really count for anything when the pod lands, and you can stand on top of them and what not. Thats not really in the BRB, but this solution arose out of necessity.

As for 'hull' issues--everything that is not a minor detail is not automaticly hull. Just like everything that is not minor detail on an infantry model is not automaticly body. Take a space marine biker, for example--no one usually argues that the bike is meerly ornamental. However, the bike also is not part of the model's body... so what is it? Can it be targeted? Is the entire bike ignored?

What about shooting, where you must measure from the model's eyes? Well what if you model has no eyes? Are you unable to shoot?

Finally, what if your skimmer does not have a nominal hull or turret? What if it is more appropriately described as wings and fuselage?

RAW has its place, guys. But the Valkyrie breaks as many conventions as a tau gun drone does... On one hand, you can ignore the wings, exactly like you EXPLICITLY ignore the wings on non-vehicle models.

On the other hand, the hand I dont like to shake with, you can enforce some notion that the wing simply MUST be hull, it CANT be anything else, or the rest of the rules will collapse.

And when you do this, you have all my posts detailing the problems with such an arrangement. Like, of course, the issue that the model cant disembark its passengers, as the wing 'hull' is on top of the access points. And the issue that only very tall models can assault the thing, due to not being able to move underneath the hull to get to the base.

So I dont know what is most convient--neither solution is RAW. My attempted solution tries to address issues that would otherwise make the model unplayable. The downside is that you cant shoot the wings any more. I feel that this is a pretty decent trade, seeing as the valk is still a giant elevated bulls eye, even without the wings to target.

So you admit your entire argument is "I wanna change the rules because I do not like them".

No matter how much you rant and rave, being able to walk under the wings of a Valkyrie IS RaW.

Gwar! wrote:So you admit your entire argument is "I wanna change the rules because I do not like them".

No matter how much you rant and rave, being able to walk under the wings of a Valkyrie IS RaW.

I dont think thats what hes saying. I think hes just saying that people are giving the valkyrie special rules, but arnt giving the same special rules to other vehicles. A rhino ontop of another rhino is indeed, not occupying the same space.

The good news is, it doesn't even matter what you call the hull for this particular argument we are having. Ignoring the difficulty in debarking units from valkyries, the only other real issue is that of where you can put the valkyrie when it ends its move.

The only relevant rules passages are as follows.

Pg. 11 MODELS IN THE WAY
"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the movement and shooting phases - this is only possible during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting."

This is the biggest rule to focus on. We establish here that a model is defined as its base and its hull. Thats important for later. We also establish where a model can't be. It can not be in the space of any model, and it also can not be within 1" of an enemy model.

To recap, neither the hull nor the base may be in the space occupied by a friendly model, nor may they be within an inch of an enemy model.

As for the 'gap' between models... the gap concept is discussed later in the rulebook when talking about cover save exceptions. GW defines gaps between models as only as tall as the models in question. See page 22 "firing through units or area terrain" for more on 'gaps'

Pg. 71 MOVING SKIMMERS
"Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they can not end their move on top of either. Note that a skimmer must be set down on the table and left in place at the end of its move - it cannot be left hovering in mid-air!

Skimmers can move over all terrain, ignoring all penalties for difficult terrain and tests for dangerous terrain. However, if a moving skimmer starts or ends its move in difficult or dangerous terrain, it must make a dangerous terrain test. A skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must take a dangerous terrain test."

For every other model, including valkyries, the model can only be defined by a maximum of two elements. Base and hull. If neither the base nor the hull are touching a friendly model, or terrain, or are within 1" of enemy models, how can you possibly attempt to say that the model is 'in' something. Our only barometer for where a model is is clearly defined by the 11th page of the rulebook. The air surrounding, above and below a model, or above and below a piece of terrain, is just that... air.

Using this last rule we establish that, during a move, a skimmers base and hull may pass over friendly and enemy models, difficult and dangerous terrain without penalty, and impassable terrain.

Some may jump on the last sentence of this rules passage and say "hey, friendly and enemy models are impassable terrain, therefore you'll have to take a dangerous terrain test if your wing is over one of them". But we have both the 'on top of' line after, and the precedent that the space above models is not considered impassable terrain because then models could not occupy the space above other models in a ruin.

It is an unfortunate word choice to use the word 'over' in that last sentence, but it is immediately qualified and defined by the next thought "... actually place the model on top of it."

Where to put the valkyrie isn't really a problem. It's how to disembark and how to contest an objective. As long as a valkyrie (or any future model equipped with this "here to stay" flying stand) is worth a kill point, it is deserving of the ability to contest an objective. And any transport in 40k should be able to legally deploy their own passengers without needing to travel flat out. But thats another can of worms...

Add to that the rule that the skimmer base is irrelvent outside of assaults (as per the pages of quotes) and issues are harder to find.

Sill on pg 71

I have a quick comment about the "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" rule.

Take a land raider, for instance. The land raider's front end slopes up, leaving an overhang in the front. Say the 'rader is moving. It drives up to a friendly base (lets assume there is no actual model on the base, since only the base matters), so that the front upward slope is clearly overhanging the base of the friendly model... infact, the slope is great enough to cover over a majority of the base.

Now, the land raider's hull is not touching the base, yet when viewed top down, the land raider's hull is clearly on top of the base. Is this a legal move? If the space that a model (without a hull) occupies is limited to the base that is 2mm tall and 25 mm wide, then yes you can put a land raider over the base. But by the same token, wouldnt you be able to put bases underneath a fire prism, thanks to the 15mm clearance from the flight stand and the bottom of the hull? The actual model on top of the base wouldnt matter from a strictly RAW point of view in this incidence, correct?

That is basicly why I interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" actually refers to the 2d, or top down, view--or if it makes more sense, the base/hull extends infinitely upwards to create a cyclinder 'volume' that has 3 dimensions. Either way, my result is that you cant put bases underneath a vehicle, be it a land raider or skimmer.

Maybe we should look at the table profile and ignore the Y dimension?

Does that help more than ignoring the Z?

kirsanth wrote:Maybe we should look at the table profile and ignore the Y dimension?

Does that help more than ignoring the Z?

No, I want to ignore the X!

I am X-ist!

Night Lords wrote:I dont think thats what hes saying. I think hes just saying that people are giving the valkyrie special rules, but arnt giving the same special rules to other vehicles. A rhino ontop of another rhino is indeed, not occupying the same space.

Page 13, IMpassable terrain:

Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain

So "on top of" and "above" are indeed two different things: if one rhino tries to sit ON TOP of another model, it is trying to sit ON TOP of impoosible terrain. Which you cannot do.

You can however be ABOVE impassable terrain.

Seriously, how difficult is it to understand: the entire game is 3D. EVERYTHING, by default. Saying "above" and "on top of" doesnt even make sense in 2D, you simply have "in" - you cannot be above a model in 2D, you can only overlap it, which must mean you are inside it. Nothing has thickness remember?

So, I place my model so it is 1" away from an enemy model, in an otherwise legal position: this is a legal position. You now need to find a rule that explicitly denies this, and explicitly does so due to measurement being ain a single 2D plane.

Ify ou cannot do so I suggest you concede with some semblance of grace.

Well, actually, GW still hasn't admitted that 3D even exists. They sort of treat things like the bible. There are a lot of conflicting facts, passages, and broken logic if you try to analyze it. But once you can admit that its purpose is not to make a finite set of rules, it suddenly becomes a lot more clear. If you believe in that sort of thing that is.

The quote about friendly units being impassable terrain is real good, I think, and proves that Valkyries can partially hang above other units.

And I will now make a little picture to explain about a point that was talked about very much in this thread...how a Valkyrie can be ABOVE a model, but not ON TOP OF.


[img=http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6029/valk2.th.jpg]
Do you agree? Disagree? Is this picture comprehensible?

I agree.
In fact, I will go further and say this is without a doubt the correct way to play.

I agree as well.
"on top" and "above" are nonsensical in 2D, you simply have inside and outside.

The game is 3D: look at how the determine TLOS: it can ONLY work in 3D

This may have already been covered somewhere earlier in the thread so forgive me...but what happens if the center of a blast marker is both over the wing and the rhino if the valk's wing is above the rhino like in the above picture.

This may then fall into the "is the wing part of the hull" debate as well.

Axyl wrote:This may have already been covered somewhere earlier in the thread so forgive me...but what happens if the center of a blast marker is both over the wing and the rhino if the valk's wing is above the rhino like in the above picture.

This may then fall into the "is the wing part of the hull" debate as well.

This case gets tricky. I suppose you could claim it hits both, but as has been pointed out, the Valk has So many issues not covered by the current rules, it's best to make something up on the fly.

DevianID wrote:That is basicly why I interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" actually refers to the 2d, or top down, view--or if it makes more sense, the base/hull extends infinitely upwards to create a cyclinder 'volume' that has 3 dimensions. Either way, my result is that you cant put bases underneath a vehicle, be it a land raider or skimmer.

What do you do when a plane flies over your house?

n0t_u wrote:

DevianID wrote:That is basicly why I interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" actually refers to the 2d, or top down, view--or if it makes more sense, the base/hull extends infinitely upwards to create a cyclinder 'volume' that has 3 dimensions. Either way, my result is that you cant put bases underneath a vehicle, be it a land raider or skimmer.

What do you do when a plane flies over your house?

Obviously he stops reality and asks the plane to move a bit to the left.

Witzkatz wrote:The quote about friendly units being impassable terrain is real good, I think, and proves that Valkyries can partially hang above other units.

And I will now make a little picture to explain about a point that was talked about very much in this thread...how a Valkyrie can be ABOVE a model, but not ON TOP OF.


[img=http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6029/valk2.th.jpg]
Do you agree? Disagree? Is this picture comprehensible?

I agree, nice pic, that's it.

3D game.

Axyl wrote:This may have already been covered somewhere earlier in the thread so forgive me...but what happens if the center of a blast marker is both over the wing and the rhino if the valk's wing is above the rhino like in the above picture.

This may then fall into the "is the wing part of the hull" debate as well.

hole is over both hulls both take a full strength hit .... since nether is in a ruin ... if they were then they would both be hit if they were on the same level ... (note i would work out level from the level the flight stand is on)

in fluff

Both Destroyed (/explode) = the shot was perfect an took off the Valkyrie wing ... which smashed through the rhino beneath.
Rhino Destroyed and Valkyrie stunned damaged = parts of the Destroyed rhino fly up clipping the wing (stun) stunning the crew, (weapon destroyed) removing a weapon from its mounting (Immobilised), ripping apart the engine
Valkyrie Destroyed and Rhino damaged = The Destroyed Valkyrie crash down bouncing of of the rhino (stun) stunning the crew, (weapon destroyed) crushing a weapon (Immobilised), tearing off a tank tread.

only one is Penetrated and/or glanced ... shot was perfect hitting X full on causing Y

So if I were to position my Valkyrie on its stand so that it is making and extreme bank turn, to the vertical position (wings pointing up and down), then I will no longer take up as much space playing from the overhead, which is how the game is played as far as measuring distances and placing templates (templates are cylinders that only affect the level they are encountering, essentially).

Skinnattittar wrote:So if I were to position my Valkyrie on its stand so that it is making and extreme bank turn, to the vertical position (wings pointing up and down), then I will no longer take up as much space playing from the overhead, which is how the game is played as far as measuring distances and placing templates (templates are cylinders that only affect the level they are encountering, essentially).

You have always been able to model for advantage. It might make for some interesting situations with trying to draw LoS from the wing that is closer to the table though.

Skinnattittar wrote:So if I were to position my Valkyrie on its stand so that it is making and extreme bank turn, to the vertical position (wings pointing up and down), then I will no longer take up as much space playing from the overhead, which is how the game is played as far as measuring distances and placing templates (templates are cylinders that only affect the level they are encountering, essentially).

Yes that's perfectly legal modelling for an advantage. But it would only be an advantage against blasts and possibly some of the weapons. It would be a massive disadvantage against LOS

I can't see how it would be a disadvantage for LOS, but it would prevent my Leman Russ chilling under a wing from people placing 155mm over both. RAW they would both be affected, including any foot sloggers pulling security fodder around the tank.

Two ways it would be a disadvantage for LOS

1) you become an even taller silhouette and from the sides you'll be massive.

2) LOS from the guns will be hinder ... from the top wing gun you might not be able to hit any thing in close say within 10" (don't have the model I can't measure this accurately)

Taller silhouette = so what in a game where terrain is rarely taller than four inches.

That does bring up a good question about how skimmers with hull mounted weapons may fire. Can they point their hulls downward? Not sure if the book has anything in there about that... If not, then I would have to say you may have a point about up close firing for the top most mount, but nothing says you can't mount all your weapons on the main hull.

Weapons have 45 degrees of elevation unless otherwise stated, even if they don't appear to be able to move like that.

However, nothing is mentioned about depressing weapons which is extremely important for lots of models.

Scott-S6 wrote:Weapons have 45 degrees of elevation unless otherwise stated, even if they don't appear to be able to move like that.

SSHH, or GW will make a set of "Official" protractors that will become a required part of game play.

The blast template is a good example of my point... The blast is simultaneously on top of the valkyrie AND the rhino. Also, vehicles use hull as well, not just the base, so the picture is flawed in that respect. If the rhino was instead a whirlwind, and the top turret grazed the bottom of the wing, would it still be legal to put the whirlly under the valkyrie?

Plus, what about my post about a base, no taller than 2 mm, being able to fit under the tread of a land raider or a land speeder or anything, really. Exact same rules involved, where the hull 'hangs over' the base of another model, only the 'overhang' gap is different.

Its a bunch of double standards. The statement that you can put things under the hull of a valkyrie would also let you put guardians, for example, under a wave serpent. Since only the base is important according to one line in the rule book, and the base can easily slide under the wave serpent, then this would be an acceptable tactic--just as acceptable as something under the valkyrie. And how often do you see bases under a wave serpent?

A quick note about the "hull" not being defined:

I play Necrons. Necrons are aliens, and thus, refer to parts of their monoliths and pylons as "0100101s." This, of course, means that the entire vehicle is made up of 0100101s, and cannot be targeted, because they are not only non-hulls, they also don't even know what "hull" means.

If a Valkyrie has "wings" and these are construed to be a part of the tank by the IG player, I see no reason not to conclude that my monoliths cannot be targeted, using the same logic. I believe this argument can work for all other alien races as well. The same train of thought works with sponsons as well, so please feel free to not bring those up.

devianId - it's only a "double standard" if people were saying it couldn't be done: it can be, and does happen. I;ve seen models under WS quite a few times now, it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

You can't argue rules so now you're making appeals to absurdity, and you aren't even being absurd: if you can physically place the model then you can do so. Nothing in the rulebook denies this, and the main rules for placing and moving models implicitly allows it (by not imposing restrictions) - so what''s your problem?

The game is 3D: accept it, understand it, and play with it. It's waaaay more fun than a 2D game of chess, which is what you seem to want the game to devolve to.

From my point of view, I am arguing rules--not baseless apeals. My stance is that the rule that model's cant occupy the same space is a 2d rule. We only care about the 2d dimensions of the base/hull. The 3d representation of the model, aka the body/weapons/fiddly bits, does not matter.

Nosferatu, even in your post above you mention physically placing the model. However, the rules only care about the base--the model has no bearing what-so-ever. Which is the double standard.

On pg7 Shep quotes the rules:
Pg. 11 MODELS IN THE WAY
"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)

So, if this rule was to be played RAW, then you can actually BREAK the model off its base, slide the base under a wave serpent, and put the model back with the 'wobbly model' rule for shooting purposes. The rule would be satisified as the base did not move into or through another base or hull. The model itself, who couldnt have ever fit under the vehicle, doesnt matter--as only bases and hulls matter.

That is what I have been pointing out. Also, when looking from a top down view, something above another thing is described as 'on top' of it. Blast weapons, when viewed from above, can be 'on top' of a unit's base as well, correct? So its not like the use of 'on top' I have been advocating is not already being used in the rule book.

And as a PS, for yet another example of why the rule is a 2d rule. I dare you to physically move, using 3d movement, a base/hull INTO another base/hull. It physically cant be done unless you are shadowcat from the X-Men and can phase into solid objects. Why would GW need to write a rule saying you cant move 2 objects into each other if, using 3d logic as advocated, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

DevianID wrote:So, if this rule was to be played RAW, then you can actually BREAK the model off its base, slide the base under a wave serpent, and put the model back with the 'wobbly model' rule for shooting purposes. The rule would be satisified as the base did not move into or through another base or hull. The model itself, who couldnt have ever fit under the vehicle, doesnt matter--as only bases and hulls matter.

Not without your opponent's consent - remember your models must be mounted on their supplied base (BGB p.3 IIRC - don't have my book with me ATM)

DevianID wrote:From my point of view, I am arguing rules--not baseless apeals. My stance is that the rule that model's cant occupy the same space is a 2d rule. We only care about the 2d dimensions of the base/hull. The 3d representation of the model, aka the body/weapons/fiddly bits, does not matter.

Except throughout the game the rules show 3D models interacting in 3D terrain and make NO mention of anything being limited to 2D - that is the bit you are making up. Please, find somewhere where it states that the game is 2D. Please. In addition you see those models with doors and gaps in the hul? I definitely can put a model inside there - for example a Valks doors could let me put a model inside excpet I cannot due to that rule. Ditto Landraiders, devilfish with the doors off, etc.

DevianID wrote:
Nosferatu, even in your post above you mention physically placing the model. However, the rules only care about the base--the model has no bearing what-so-ever. Which is the double standard.

Actually the rules say the model has to fit, the rules only CARE about the base for measurements to / from.

Still no double standard. Still waiting for anything stating the game is 2D - TLOS disagrees with you as well, but I'll wait with baited breath.

DevianID wrote:
On pg7 Shep quotes the rules:
Pg. 11 MODELS IN THE WAY
"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)

So, if this rule was to be played RAW, then you can actually BREAK the model off its base, slide the base under a wave serpent, and put the model back with the 'wobbly model' rule for shooting purposes. The rule would be satisified as the base did not move into or through another base or hull. The model itself, who couldnt have ever fit under the vehicle, doesnt matter--as only bases and hulls matter.

You can't break another rule to do so -you have removed the model from the base which is what, page 3?

Anymore rediculous arguments?

DevianID wrote:
That is what I have been pointing out. Also, when looking from a top down view, something above another thing is described as 'on top' of it. Blast weapons, when viewed from above, can be 'on top' of a unit's base as well, correct? So its not like the use of 'on top' I have been advocating is not already being used in the rule book.

No, looking "top down" then "on top of" is nonsensical - if you consider the game to truly be 2D then you have no concept of "on top", you only have "inside" and "outside". "on top of" cannot exist in a 2D space. By definition.

DevianID wrote:
And as a PS, for yet another example of why the rule is a 2d rule. I dare you to physically move, using 3d movement, a base/hull INTO another base/hull. It physically cant be done unless you are shadowcat from the X-Men and can phase into solid objects. Why would GW need to write a rule saying you cant move 2 objects into each other if, using 3d logic as advocated, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Already done so. any hull with breaks in it you are moving inside by definition. Any more silly examples or will you finally concede that the entire game, AND THE DESIGNERS NOTES, call it a 3D game using actual models and actual terrain?

Augustus wrote:
3D game.

I think I can settle this:



Meltagun is clearly out of range.

3D game.

Augustus wrote:

Augustus wrote:
3D game.

I think I can settle this:



Meltagun is clearly out of range.

3D game.

What DevianID is claiming is that the meltagun would actually be in range, as the game is meant to be played. This is something that I do not agree with, as you are told with all measurements to measure from a base to a base. Not from the invisible column perpendicular to the game table to the invisible column perpendicular to the game table.

The melta gun is in fact out of range and the game is in fact played in three dimensions.

Careful now, you'll be accused of double standards. Somehow.

Why does this thread not have cowbell?

Precisely Wildstyle, I agree, well spoken.

I agree that 40k is a 3d game and the vertical dimension cannot be ignored for any measurement.

Even outside the section covering ruins, there is text that indicates clearly that the vertical dimension is a factor to be considered;

"If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it" BGB p.22

This rule clearly demonstrates that models and elements of terrain occupy finite space vertically which ends at the top of the model itself. The fact that line of sight can be drawn and shots fired over the top of a model's finite vertical space mandates consideration of the vertical dimension. This rule simply cannot function any other way. If this were a 2d game, there would be no way shots could go "over" anything without going "through it". The concept of "over" does not exist in a 2d world.

If a model occupies finite vertical space (which we know from the above rule), and the finite space ends at the top of the model (which we know from the above rule), and the bottom of an enemy valkyrie's wing is more than 1" above where the model's finite vertical space ends (which we can determine by measuring vertically), the model has complied with the rule that it cannot come within 1" of an enemy model even though it is positioned below the valkyrie's wing.

If that valkyrie were then immobilized while the model or rhino was positioned below the wing, the model or rhino would no longer be complying with the 1" away rule, and precedent tells us to move it the shortest distance possible to come back into compliance with that rule while maintaining coherency.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:If that valkyrie were then immobilized while the model or rhino was positioned below the wing, the model or rhino would no longer be complying with the 1" away rule, and precedent tells us to move it the shortest distance possible to come back into compliance with that rule while maintaining coherency.

I direct you good sir to Page 71 of the 5th Edition Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, which states "If a skimmer is immobilised or wrecked, its base is removed, if possible. If this is not possible (the base might have been glued in place, for example), don't worry about it. The skimmer's anti-grav field is obviously still working and an immobilised skimmer will simply remain hovering in place, incapable of any further movement."

Bold added by yours truly. If Possible, you remove the base. If it is not (say, because of the Rhino under it meaning if you do it will be in an illegal position) you simply leave the base on.

I'd say it's debatable whether "if possible" is referring to "possible" without breaking the model or "possible" without violating other rules or both.

My reading had always been "possible" without breaking the model because the example references a base which is "glued in place" suggesting it is physically impossible to remove it without breaking the model.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:I'd say it's debatable whether "if possible" is referring to "possible" without breaking the model or "possible" without violating other rules or both.

My reading had always been "possible" without breaking the model because the example references a base which is "glued in place" suggesting it is physically impossible to remove it without breaking the model.

-GK

But what in the rule says that it only takes into account breaking the model? The rule quoted even says "for example" indicating that it is definitely not the only way for the skimmer to be prevented from removing its base.

Augustus wrote:

Why is the guy saying "meltagun"?

(S)He is clearly pointing it at the heretic scum and screaming "MELTAGUN!" Just like they call out attacks in certain weird cartoons.

Gwar! wrote:(S)He is clearly pointing it at the heretic scum and screaming "MELTAGUN!" Just like they call out attacks in certain weird cartoons.

Anime teaches us that all Giant Robot (TM) weapon systems are voice activated. In some instances, the louder and more emphasis placed on certain syllables varies the attack strength exponentially.

I see. So if you really need to kill that Land Raider you have to say, "MeltaaaaaaaaaGUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But then it'll miss because the Land Raider has too much friendship or something.

also add bald and screaming as a bonus

Nice diagram

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why is the guy saying "meltagun"?

My bad! Is this better?

But what in the rule says that it only takes into account breaking the model? The rule quoted even says "for example" indicating that it is definitely not the only way for the skimmer to be prevented from removing its base.

Absolutely nothing in that rule says it only takes into account physical impossibility. However, when a rule provides an example, it is suggesting that the rule applies to situations similar to the one in the example. Here, the example provided is one of physical impossibility, not rules-based impossibility.


-GK

GiantKiller wrote:Absolutely nothing in that rule says it only takes into account physical impossibility. However, when a rule provides an example, it is suggesting that the rule applies to situations similar to the one in the example. Here, the example provided is one of physical impossibility, not rules-based impossibility. -GK

The reason that they use this example IMO, is that (prior to this thrice-accursed flight stand) is that physical impossibility would have been by far the most common, and indeed, glued flight stands are typical given how useless they are at holding themselves on.