this came up in another thread so i figured i'd post it here. i'm thinking about buying two valks but my preferred storage option is the GW case. If i want to fit them both in there, i have to clip off the tail boom permanently and make the wings removable. is this tail removal modelling for advantage? i can't think of any actual advantage (or disadvantage frankly other than storage) that the tail gives. it's not the hull so it is not used to measure distance for firing at nor is it used to gain a few extra inches in emergency disembarking. it's 5" up off the ground so it can't be charged unless immobilized (and even that is iffy). other than looking cool, the tail serves no in game purpose.

Use magnets to attach the tail and make the Valk able to be broken down to fit your preferred storage.

Then, it fits your case AND keep the cool-looking tail.

i don't have much faith in a pair of magnets keeping that long of a shaft in place. to much normal force.

warboss wrote:i don't have much faith in a pair of magnets keeping that long of a shaft in place. to much normal force.

A big enough magnet would do the job; my hammerhead turrets are magnetized and haven't had one fall off yet, not even if I hold it upside down and shake it.

i might try it.

for those voting yes, could you post a blurb about what advantage in game you actually get?

agnosto wrote:

warboss wrote:i don't have much faith in a pair of magnets keeping that long of a shaft in place. to much normal force.

A big enough magnet would do the job; my hammerhead turrets are magnetized and haven't had one fall off yet, not even if I hold it upside down and shake it.

This made me laugh.

It would just be too much without the word "turrets" though.

Instead of magnets, why not pin the tail in place with small metal sticks? Drill one or two small holes on both sides and attach metal rods on one side to act as anchors. ( Not sure if this comes across properly since I am improvising terminology. )

I think you'll find that whether or not the tail actually counts as hull is pretty rigorously debated. I'm in the "if it's not decoration it's hull" camp myself.

While I agree with the above, I would say it is in the spirit of the game to make variant vehicles out of standard vehicles.

The query is what unfair advantage might be gained by the procedure. Could it be considered the equivalent of turning your Land Raiders into low riders to minimise their target profile.

Personally I would not have a big problem with that. I think some strict players might get annoyed though.

Agree w/willydstyle. It's not clear that the tail section isn't "hull" as per the rules. Since the huge size of the valk is one of its disadvantages, it could be seen as modeling for advantage.

Which is why I didn't vote in the poll, as I think the first option is misleading.

Kilkrazy wrote:While I agree with the above, I would say it is in the spirit of the game to make variant vehicles out of standard vehicles.

The query is what unfair advantage might be gained by the procedure. Could it be considered the equivalent of turning your Land Raiders into low riders to minimise their target profile.

Personally I would not have a big problem with that. I think some strict players might get annoyed though.

I confess belonging to the "strict" school. The wings and tail are integral parts of the vehicle and as such are "hull". You can draw LOS and target them. But as always YMMV. If your local regular opponents are cool with it, no problem.

so if you think it's part of the hull, you'd have no problem with someone emergency diserbarking 2" from the tip of the tail?

warboss wrote:so if you think it's part of the hull, you'd have no problem with someone emergency diserbarking 2" from the tip of the tail?

Obviously. This is just one of many follow-up questions that result from the "hull or not hull"- debate. The door must swing both ways. If my opponent can target and shoot the wings and tail of my birds ( I´ve actually lost more Vendettas to Ordnance Blast shots than Lascannons or Missile Launcers ) the I get this small benefit.

A-P wrote:

warboss wrote:so if you think it's part of the hull, you'd have no problem with someone emergency diserbarking 2" from the tip of the tail?

Obviously. This is just one of many follow-up questions that result from the "hull or not hull"- debate. The door must swing both ways. If my opponent can target and shoot the wings and tail of my birds ( I´ve actually lost more Vendettas to Ordnance Blast shots than Lascannons or Missile Launcers ) the I get this small benefit.

There's no door in the back of the model. All other transports have doors, that why models are destroyed if the access points are blocked at the time the vehicle is destroyed.

If you don't like the negatives that come with your bazillion lazcannon shots, don't use the unit in your games.

agnosto wrote:
There's no door in the back of the model. All other transports have doors, that why models are destroyed if the access points are blocked at the time the vehicle is destroyed.

If you don't like the negatives that come with your bazillion lazcannon shots, don't use the unit in your games.

. No offense, but you have lost me. No door in the back? Please elaborate. Last time I looked Valk/Vendys have three access point: left, right and back.

Actually, the bit about a unit being destroyed if the access points are blocked is false.

If a transport is destroyed, you disembark. Through the access points if they are clear, but via emergency disembark (anywhere within 2" of the hull) if the access points are not clear.

The access points on a Valk are meaningless anyway - all units disembark/embark by being within 2" of the base.

A-P wrote:

. No offense, but you have lost me. No door in the back? Please elaborate. Last time I looked Valk/Vendys have three access point: left, right and back.

My bad, it's been a while since I looked at one. Well, then of course you jump out the back. Makes you think though about jumping down that far, the same with devilfish and like skimmers...

I think your poll ignores the nature of the rule: that modeling for advantage is prohibited. Even if you gained an advantage, you're not seeking one any more than a person who builds their snipers to be prone.

Magnets can easily keep the tail in place if you wanted to go that route. Strength is definitely not a problem and it's not even that much work. The tails are hollow inside, so you just stick a little modeling putty into each side, push a magnet in and let it cure. Very easy. There are creases built into the tail that you can cut it on so it won't look fugly either, unless you use a really old saw or something.

As for "modeling for an advantage", I'm going to say the same thing I said in the other thread: by trimming down the tail, you're requiring the model to take up a lot less space than it would normally need. This lets you potentially move 6" onto the board without having to twist at an angle. That IS an advantage.

I know the INAT FAQ makes an exception for this, but that's a pretty obvious rules change, not a clarification. You can't be half on the table. Either you're on or you're off. Ever looked at the vendetta and gone "wow, 130 points for all that???"

well, this is why. The model is ginormous and there are disadvantages that come with that.

Actually, you can be half off the table. You are not moving off as prohibited by the FAQ, but rather moving on.

thebetter1 wrote:Actually, you can be half off the table. You are not moving off as prohibited by the FAQ, but rather moving on.

The rules are permissive. They don't need to have "you can't move off the table" in ink - the table is, for the purposes of your models, a 6x4 universe. There is nothing after the edge.

You're either on or you're off.

I own a few valks and I always consider shots from the rear hitting the tail to count. So shortening it could be considered for those that want a shot at rear armor with short range weapons (ie Melta guns).

grankobot wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Actually, you can be half off the table. You are not moving off as prohibited by the FAQ, but rather moving on.

The rules are permissive. They don't need to have "you can't move off the table" in ink - the table is, for the purposes of your models, a 6x4 universe. There is nothing after the edge.

You're either on or you're off.

It's an area not covered by the rules. It says you must move on, but does not say that you must fully move onto the board. The INAT ruling is a good compromise.

so with all this talk of modeling for advantage...I can't use my demon prince that was put onto the bloodthirster round base because the small termy one just didn't seem right?

Daemon Princes are weird - some come with 60mm bases and others come with 40mm. Either would be fine.

warboss wrote:i don't have much faith in a pair of magnets keeping that long of a shaft in place. to much normal force.

Um, Normal force has nothing to do with it. I don't even think it is possible to have 'too much' normal force.

There may, however, be too much torque.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The access points on a Valk are meaningless anyway - all units disembark/embark by being within 2" of the base.

unless it's immoblized, in which case (if you believe the tail is part of the hull), the embarked troops slip'n'slide down the tail and off back tips.

a pin mount with a pair of neodyium magnets will hold in place. if you are worried about magnet strength get the thicker ones that look like small cylinders.. they are extremely strong for their size.

warboss wrote:it's not the hull so it is not used to measure distance for firing at nor is it used to gain a few extra inches in emergency disembarking. it's 5" up off the ground so it can't be charged unless immobilized (and even that is iffy). other than looking cool, the tail serves no in game purpose.

I use Vendettas / Valks frequently in my Guard army.

Comments:

#1: current INAT FAQ (if you're using it) defines everything but the weapon mounts as part of the hull. So in a tourney using that FAQ, shrinking the model is modeling for advantage. If you're just counting the fuselage as the hull in a friendly game, go ahead. You're probably not verifying true LOS from the weapon mounts, either.

#2: All assaults interact with a skimmer's base. Your vehicle isn't immune just because it's on a large flying stand. Valks and Vendettas can be charged as any other vehicle.

What if a gamer came to your store and had several different sized flight stands and had modeled the gunship such that he could fold the wings in when he wanted to? Suppose he has an Inquisitor with Mystics mounted in the gunship and folds out the wings when rolling for spotting distance versus your deep striking units then folds them back when you fire ordnance at it? He places the model on a high flight stand when shooting at your units to ignore intervening terrain as cover then places it on a short flight stand to gain the benefit of cover. Would you be okay with that from a modelling point of view?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:What if a gamer came to your store and had several different sized flight stands and had modeled the gunship such that he could fold the wings in when he wanted to? Suppose he has an Inquisitor with Mystics mounted in the gunship and folds out the wings when rolling for spotting distance versus your deep striking units then folds them back when you fire ordnance at it? He places the model on a high flight stand when shooting at your units to ignore intervening terrain as cover then places it on a short flight stand to gain the benefit of cover. Would you be okay with that from a modelling point of view?

G

yeah, that's got nothing to do with what i asked. i didn't propose having a removable tail that i take off WHEN I WANT TO and put back WHEN IT SUITS ME. i asked if a permanent modelling choice affects the game (which, judging from your post, you think it does).

so, for the people who are against taking off the tail, do you EVER allow opponents to use vehicle conversions? if you're saying the tail has to stay on, your answer should be no since only VERY RARELY does a conversion match the exact dimensions of the original. if someone wanted to use at-43 red blok walkers as sentinels, you'd obviously have to disallow that since they're a half inch shorter which would be modelling for advantage. or if someone with a star wars clonetroopers army had scratchbuilt LAATs (which he matched the body and wing dimensions of the valkyrie exactly) you'd have to refuse to play him as the LAAT doesn't have a super long tail and that would be modelling for advantage. in all seriousness, i can't see those saying no to the tail loss allowing conversions that don't match the shape and dimensions of the original without being hypocritcal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or for instance the guy doing some cool conversions in the catachan special forces blog in p&m. he's using little jeeps/suv's that fit in a valk as his scout sentinels. you'd have to say "nope" as they're twice as long and half as tall as the real sentinels.

willydstyle wrote:I think you'll find that whether or not the tail actually counts as hull is pretty rigorously debated. I'm in the "if it's not decoration it's hull" camp myself.

I don't want to get killed or anything, but so am I, honestly. I just don't buy that whole "WINGS AREN'T HULL!" argument because of what you said, it isn't a decorative ornament, it's an essential part of the vehicle.

I don't care if the A-10 can still fly if you blow half of it up!

warboss wrote:so if you think it's part of the hull, you'd have no problem with someone emergency diserbarking 2" from the tip of the tail?

The FAQ clearly says you measure from the base when embarking/disembarking or claiming objectives. This was an exception made for the valkyrie because of it's stupid height and stupid not-being-a-flyer (flier?) crap.

Even if we didn't have the FAQ though you'd still be breaking a basic rule, you can only embark/disembark from entry points and the "tip of the tail" is not an entry point.

warboss wrote:if you believe the tail is part of the hull

It is part of the hull, because a plane can't very well fly without wings and a tail!

warboss wrote:yeah, that's got nothing to do with what i asked. i didn't propose having a removable tail that i take off WHEN I WANT TO and put back WHEN IT SUITS ME. i asked if a permanent modelling choice affects the game (which, judging from your post, you think it does).

No, it does effect the game, it isn't a matter of opinion.

Personally I would let you use valkyries without tails if you agreed to play like they still had them, so that means no playing with them half-off the table and I can still draw LOS to them. Surely if you're doing this just so they fit better in your case then you wouldn't have any problem with that at all because you aren't deliberately trying to ignore one of the only disadvantages of a valkyrie/vendetta in the first place, right?

warboss wrote:so, for the people who are against taking off the tail, do you EVER allow opponents to use vehicle conversions? if you're saying the tail has to stay on, your answer should be no since only VERY RARELY does a conversion match the exact dimensions of the original. if someone wanted to use at-43 red blok walkers as sentinels, you'd obviously have to disallow that since they're a half inch shorter which would be modelling for advantage. or if someone with a star wars clonetroopers army had scratchbuilt LAATs (which he matched the body and wing dimensions of the valkyrie exactly) you'd have to refuse to play him as the LAAT doesn't have a super long tail and that would be modelling for advantage. in all seriousness, i can't see those saying no to the tail loss allowing conversions that don't match the shape and dimensions of the original without being hypocritcal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or for instance the guy doing some cool conversions in the catachan special forces blog in p&m. he's using little jeeps/suv's that fit in a valk as his scout sentinels. you'd have to say "nope" as they're twice as long and half as tall as the real sentinels.

First of all, there's a difference between a half-inch and cutting the model damn near in half (well, unless it's infantry in which case a half-inch is half, obviously). And in the case of a half-inch, if the converter agrees to treat it as if it's the same size as the model it represents for LOS purposes, then honestly I have no problem with that.

Second, there's also a difference between someone who converts a cool model for the fun of it, and someone who clearly does it because they don't like how big their model is and are claiming they're doing it for a practical reason, or because it "looks cooler". I might buy it if you say they won't fit in a case otherwise (buy a bigger case, Jesus...Sabol cases aren't that expensive and the wings are already removable, surely you could fit both of them in a motor pool bag without cutting them down and ruining them?), but while you claim that's the reason you're obviously very butthurt over the idea of not being able to take advantage of this in-game, which I find rather dubious. If it was really a matter of convenience then why the gak-fit and "Other people can do it why can't I?!"

Third, on clonetrooper LAATs, no I wouldn't play with that unless he pretends it has a super-long tail. It's comparable to playing with low-rider land raiders or super-long battlewagons that let you get into assault quicker, that's a major difference and it changes the way you play with the model in game too much to let it slide.

he's using little jeeps/suv's that fit in a valk as his scout sentinels.

I'd ask if he would play with them like they were the dimension of a regular sentinel.

Sidstyler wrote:*snipped for clarity*

1) The FAQ clearly says you measure from the base when embarking/disembarking or claiming objectives. This was an exception made for the valkyrie because of it's stupid height and stupid not-being-a-flyer (flier?) crap.

Even if we didn't have the FAQ though you'd still be breaking a basic rule, you can only embark/disembark from entry points and the "tip of the tail" is not an entry point.

2) It is part of the hull, because a plane can't very well fly without wings and a tail!

3)Second, there's also a difference between someone who converts a cool model for the fun of it, and someone who clearly does it because they don't like how big their model is and are claiming they're doing it for a practical reason, or because it "looks cooler". I might buy it if you say they won't fit in a case otherwise (buy a bigger case, Jesus...Sabol cases aren't that expensive and the wings are already removable, surely you could fit both of them in a motor pool bag without cutting them down and ruining them?), but while you claim that's the reason you're obviously very butthurt over the idea of not being able to take advantage of this in-game, which I find rather dubious. If it was really a matter of convenience then why the gak-fit and "Other people can do it why can't I?!"

1) if you read through the whole thread, you'd see that i said EMERGENCY DISEMBARKING 2" FROM THE TAIL TIP WHEN IMMOBILIZED. when you're immobilized and a skimmer, you're supposed to take the vehicle off of the base. so, now that i've REPEATED what was previously stated, would you have a problem with someone doing that since the tail is a part of the hull in your not so humble opinion?

2) um, the boeing bird of prey and x-36 planes would like to disagree with you. also, the IN SERVICE b-2 bomber currently killing terroristly in iraq and afghanistan called and said it flies just fine without a tail, thank you very much. no one other than you has talked about using a valkyrie without wings.

3) please stop talking about my butt; you're not my type and it really unbecoming. first off, i don't own any valks as i'm just considering buying them in the future so it's hard to get excited over something that doesn't affect me and might not ever. i do, however, object to people posting "nu uh!" posts that are contradictory or simply change the circumstances of the OP (like the post above comparing the situation to multiple wing variants that i change when it suits me). the only reason i'm considering lopping off the tail is to fit them in the CASES I ALREADY OWN AND AM NOT USING. why should i pay for more useless cases when i have 5!! sitting at home? i'm already lugging a double GW case for my guard army and i'd like to actually bring my ogryns, rough riders, grey knight termie DH allies, and possibly two valks to a game for more options (i never bring the first two units because they don't fit). that would be the limit of what i'm willing to physically carry for a pick up game. there is no "gak fit" as you so vulgarly pointed out; i'm just pointing out the possibly hypocrasy of one point of view. you at least seem to be consistent in your rude attitude so i guess that's a plus.

i posted this to gauge the general 40k populace's reaction to a valk without a tail and the vote is pretty much split. i doubt i'll model them without the tail if i can physically manage to put both valks with removeable tails/wings in a gw standard case along with my other non-core units since opinions run strong on both sides.

Dude, magnets!

Tutorial here: http://www.rogue-market.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2689 - doesn't include anything about the tail, but it's a good source of general info

Magnets here: http://www.rare-earth-magnets.com/SearchResult-CategoryID-28.html

Super easy. Everyone wins. Plus you get a shiny "+1 modeling skillz" badge for your friends to ooh and aaah over.

1) if you read through the whole thread, you'd see that i said DEPLOYING 2" FROM THE TAIL TIP WHEN IMMOBILIZED. when you're immobilized and a skimmer, you're supposed to take the vehicle off of the base. so, now that i've REPEATED what was previously stated, would you have a problem with someone doing that since the tail is a part of the hull in your not so humble opinion?

And if you read through the rulebook it says you deploy within 2" of an access point. That means the sides and the rear ramp. The tail tip is not the access point, so YES, I would still have a problem with someone doing that because it's against the rules.

Show me in the rulebook where it says you can place a model anywhere you want 2" within the hull of vehicle, and explain to me why we even have access points at all.

2) um, the boeing bird of prey and x-36 planes would like to disagree with you. also, the IN SERVICE b-2 bomber currently killing terroristly in iraq and afghanistan called and said it flies just fine without a tail, thank you very much.

And the A-10 which I myself described is designed to fly with half a wing, one engine, and one tail.

So really, I proved myself wrong and you've accomplished nothing by pointing this out, except showing off your knowledge of IRL aircraft.

In any case, I have to ask, so what? Okay, so a valkyrie, judging by real-life examples, could possibly fly just fine without its tail. Which means...I can't target the tail of a valkyrie? If you're using real life to support your argument then why can't I? If I could blow off the tail of a plane with a missile in real life then why can't I in the game? The rulebook states that you can't target weapons or decorations, are you saying the tail and wings are decorations? Are they optional? Could I field a valkyrie without them then if I so wished?

3) where are the rules regarding models being brought partly on the table?

I think the onus is on you to point out where in the rules it says models can be half-on/half-off the table. I dunno how this whole debate thing works though, I might be wrong.

The rule of thumb is usually "If the rulebook doesn't say you can, then you can't." As for your question the only place in the book it even briefly mentions this (probably because most models in the game can't be placed half-on the table without falling off...clearly no one thought this through) is in the section on Reserves, which merely says that you measure from the table edge when coming in from reserve.

In any case, the valkyrie can move up to 24" a turn, you shouldn't ever really have to place it half-on, half-off the table...unless you just want to be difficult.

4) please stop talking about my butt; you're not my type and it really unbecoming.

...this felt appropriate.

first off, i don't own any valks as i'm just considering buying them in the future. the ONLY reason i'm considering lopping off the tail is to fit them in the CASES I ALREADY OWN AND AM NOT USING. why should i pay for more useless cases when i have 5!! sitting at home?

I wouldn't have bought the GW cases in the first place because they are useless.

I'm just offering an alternative. If you really have 5 cases sitting at home not doing anything then I would put them on eBay or trade them in at the store, and use the cash to get a Sabol bag big enough to hold all the other stuff I want to bring to games. But if your only option is butchering the model then I would take the advice posted in this thread and rely on magnets or pins and re-attach them for gaming. Rare earth magnets are stronger than you think, if you do it right it could possibly work.

there is no "gak fit" as you so vulgarly pointed out; i'm just pointing out the possibly hypocrasy of one point of view. you at least seem to be consistent in your rude attitude so congratulations.

I'm not trying to be vulgar, I'm just defending my own point of view. I don't think it's hypocritical at all, I think it's pretty reasonable considering a major cosmetic change like that does have an effect on the game. If you play the model the way it was designed then no one can possibly accuse you of wrongdoing because that's how it was obviously intended to work.

Sidstyler wrote:

1)Show me in the rulebook where it says you can place a model anywhere you want 2" within the hull of vehicle, and explain to me why we even have access points at all.

2)If you're using real life to support your argument then why can't I? ...

3)this felt appropriate.

4)I wouldn't have bought the GW cases in the first place because they are useless.

5)I'm just offering an alternative. If you really have 5 cases sitting at home not doing anything then I would put them on eBay or trade them in at the store

6)I'm not trying to be vulgar, I'm just defending my own point of view. I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

1) immobilized vehicle, emergency disembarkation. immobilized skimmers means the model is removed from the base if possible. if it is destroyed and the exits are blocked, you can perform an emergency disembarkation in which you deploy within 2" of the hull and are pinned IIRC. so... you'd be ok with 2" from the tail tip in this situation?

2) um, yeah, i didn't... you did by bringing up an a-10. i'm just rebutting in your choice of a medium.. IRL.

3) i prefer the south park butters version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxCSSzb0I9o

4) i actually rather like them. i own a bunch of the smaller ones and have been trading over the past year since getting back into 40k for the larger ones. i've moved a half dozen times in the past 10 years and previously used them on a biweekly basis with almost no models breaking. i simply prefer the hard case to the sabol transports (own one also) or the more recent battlefoam alternatives (which are nicer but $$$). my cases have been good to me and i'm loyal to them.

5) i beat you to it. 3 of them are payment pending on bartertown now that i've got my 3 double sized cases.

6) but you are when you refer to another poster's anatomy in a sexual fashion as well as swearing in the same post (regardless of whether or not the dakka vulgarity filter turns it into "gak" or not). and you're not hypocritical if you *do* require that people with any vehicle conversion use the original model's dimensions for LOS/etc. i'm just stating that i believe some people would be.

either way, problem solved if romeo of battlefoam fame can determine if i can fit this and another infantry foam in a gw case.

Where is the other pair of wings?

Personally, I'm planning on dropping the tail on my Valk's, as I just don't like them.

SJ

Personally, I'm planning on dropping the tracks on my Land Raiders, as I just don't like them.

1) immobilized vehicle, emergency disembarkation. immobilized skimmers means the model is removed from the base if possible. if it is destroyed and the exits are blocked, you can perform an emergency disembarkation in which you deploy within 2" of the hull and are pinned IIRC. so... you'd be ok with 2" from the tail tip in this situation?

So this whole "deploying 2" from the tail tip" thing you've been going on about will only come into play when your valkyrie is immobilized and somehow all exits have been blocked?

In that case, yeah, if you were immobilized and forced to land, and all access points were blocked, even though I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in which the rear access point would be blocked but not also the tip of the tail, but I'm rolling with it...you could disembark 2" from any part of the hull.

But what are the odds that there will be terrain/models perfectly placed around the valkyrie so that all but that one part of the hull is blocked? The rule says remove the base "if possible", if there's a swarm of tanks or infantry beneath you I don't think it's possible...

but you are when you refer to another poster's anatomy in a sexual fashion

Okay, this is starting to get funny. You do realize I wasn't coming on to you, yeah? I have no idea how long you've been on the internet, but "butthurt" is a fairly common term used to describe someone when they're frustrated, usually if they're venting in a rather whiny way.

I don't know if you keep bringing this up because you honestly don't know or if you're just screwing with me, but still.

as well as swearing in the same post (regardless of whether or not the dakka vulgarity filter turns it into "gak" or not).

I swear a lot, more often than not that's just a little bit of me slipping out and I'm almost never actually mad when I do it (if I ever did post when I was fuming mad every other word would have to be filtered). I don't post here as often as I do on other forums, but I'm actually a tad (in)famous for it. I have to make an actual conscious effort not to swear when I post just to keep myself from getting banned.


Oh, another thing: I think I exaggerated a bit on how big the tail booms really are, it's more like 1/3 of the model and not fully half. That's still a lot though.

Anyway, I was actually going to suggest Battlefoam trays for your valkyries, but I was under the impression you didn't want to spend money on storage at all. But yeah, if those will fit in a GW case then go for that, definitely worth it if you ask me.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Personally, I'm planning on dropping the tracks on my Land Raiders, as I just don't like them.

It makes about as much sense...but that's just my opinion.

What if a gamer came to your store with his landraider bottom half cut off and he said it was modeled that way because his chapter had found an STC that showed them how to make them into tunnelers so his conversion was basically a very low riding landraider he could hide behind his rhinos? Would you be cool with that?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:What if a gamer came to your store with his landraider bottom half cut off and he said it was modeled that way because his chapter had found an STC that showed them how to make them into tunnelers so his conversion was basically a very low riding landraider he could hide behind his rhinos? Would you be cool with that?

G

since i consider the hull to be part of the hull (crazy, i know), i wouldn't. now if someone came in with a dark eldar raider with the tail and spikey protrusions cut off (which i don't consider to be the hull and is a similar comparison *gasp*), i'd be ok with that.

wouldnt the valk crash without the tail fin?

The Valk would crash even with it, so that's not a very good comparison.

A valk doesn't need a tail to fly about as much as my hammerheads don't need turrets to shoot. I'll just take the turrets off. And maybe the engines too, they don't need to be there, right? I hate how the front of my hammerhead looks, I'll just cut the parts that stick out off. What's left? not much to shoot at. I'll do the same with my piranhas too.

You can say you're just doing it in friendly games but it's not very friendly if you're doing everything you can to ensure your model has an advantage.

On the useful side: this is a link to a battlefoam case with a pre-cut Valk section, which works well and will also hold up to four chimera hulls and some weapons teams or vehicle turrets. Others have offered advice on pinning and magnets to allow the model to break down for storage.

The INAT FAQ has a rules clarification about how the Valk and other large models are brought onto the table. In short: get the base all the way on. As mentioned before: INAT has the tail and wings as part of the hull for shooting ... and yes, that ruling sucks when watching a plasma cannon shoot at your Vendetta.

On the rules side, this should be "is modeling for advantage modeling for advantage?" Seems like you're going to use an altered model anyway. You're unlikely to be able to use it in anything but beer-and-pretzel games. Nothing stopping you from stuffing a diecast Sopwith Camel, or a plastic X-Wing, or even a paper cup on a stick onto the table and calling it a Valkyrie in those games.

Seems like the rest aren't conversion questions or modeling questions, but the search for and undue advantage. A poll of dakkaites doesn't make that valid.

warboss wrote:since i consider the hull to be part of the hull (crazy, i know)

So do you honestly believe you should be allowed to have 1/3 of a vehicle sticking out behind a building and not have to worry about getting shot? Why? Because the dictionary says "hull=fuselage"?

Just curious, would you let me play my devilfish/hammerheads this way? If you were targeting one of my vehicles and all you could see was an engine nacelle sticking out behind a hill or something, then can I claim that you can't actually see it since that's not the "hull"? Or is that not fair?

Or how about this one, what if the vendetta is in front of a building and the fuselage is blocked entirely, but the wings are sticking out? I'm guessing since LOS is drawn from the weapon then you can shoot me with your dirt-cheap twin-linked lascannons, but I can't retaliate since the only part I can legally shoot at in your mind is conveniently hidden. Weapons can't be targeted, and I guess the wings can't either despite the fact that they're huge and the only reason why I'm being shot to begin with.

And since planes can fly without tails, wings, etc., this is perfectly fair and balanced and makes complete sense, and I'm just "crazy" for seeing it any other way.



You know, I wasn't aware that the valkyrie/vendetta was such a gakky, horrible unit that it needed all these extra advantages to make it worth taking. Always happy to be proven wrong I guess.

Just to throw it out there my friend showed me a neat trick to use with magnets. Instead of using two magnets to stic things together use a magnet of your choosing and the head of an 8 penny nail or larger depending on the magnet. The iron in the nail will attract the magnet with more force than two magnets and the rough surface of the nail head wont allow it to slide off. I bet 2 1/8" magnets and 8 penny nail heads would hold that tail on there nicely.

Maybe I'm thinking about this in entirely the wrong way...

I take back everything I said, I'm done bitching about the valkyrie. Instead I'm going to get to work on making low hills that hide my hammerheads perfectly...all but their railguns.

Just because this thread brought up the old fallacy once again:

It doesnt matter if an aircraft CAN fly after getting a huge chunk blown out of it, that is taken into account in the 40k rules....you rolled a 1 on the damage table. The important part is that an aircraft CAN be destroyed after getting even a small chunk blown out of it, this means that a higher number was rolled in 40k terms. Any real world example of any type or aircraft surviving even massive amounts of damage doesnt support even a fluff arguement.

Its not about whether or not a vehicle can still fly after taking damage, its about whether or not damage can knock it down.

Yes, an A-10 can often still return to base after having a hole blown in its wing (altho this does cause it to leave the combat, so in 40k terms its gone) but an A-10 can also crash after having a hole blown in its wing.


Can damage to any aircraft's tail cause it to crash? Yes, damage to a tail can possibly cause a crash. So using this real world fluff arguement means that shooting at a tail can crash the vehicle, so removing said tail would indeed be modelling for advantage.




All of that is also bringing real world fluff arguements into a ymdc debate, which doesnt belong here in the first place. But since its already been brought, just wanted to point out that its not being considered correctly.



Sliggoth

I would not shave a Valkyrie because it wouldn't look right, but I am all for using a compact flyer for in game advantage and do so quite deliberately ansd wthout shame.

Now before you pounce on me the in game advantage I am looking quite deliberatelty for is convenience. 40K is a scaled game, however while ground scale and weapons ranges are scaled miniatures are not. This means thataircraft in particular have an normous footprint which is grossly inconvenient. Got Valyries on the tabletop, got them where you need them, then you also have a a large area of the table surface in a likely quite critical place covered.

Larger size is as much an unfair advatage as small, though this analogy doesnt apply to flyers. Remember fish of fury, how did it work: Essentially you use the size of the devilfish (also wave serpents) to keep the soliders that came out the back out of of flamer range or charge opportunities. Clearly this is ridiculous, someone at the front of a vehicle not being in range of troops disembarking from the other end.
Yet this was done time and again and was considered fair tactics.

I use the Grendel miniatures Corvus for my flying transport needs, this is small but looks right. its also cheap at about a third of the price. Sure it will be far harder to target, but that to me is a fringe benefit. I am more interested in being able to land troops in the town square between four sets of ruins, something a Valkyrie or two cannot do unless the town square is like Red Square and the ruins too far away for the soldiers to trot to.

I like the Valkyrie kit but dont want any, sometimes less is more.

Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

G

Orlanth wrote:Larger size is as much an unfair advatage as small, though this analogy doesnt apply to flyers. Remember fish of fury, how did it work: Essentially you use the size of the devilfish (also wave serpents) to keep the soliders that came out the back out of of flamer range or charge opportunities. Clearly this is ridiculous, someone at the front of a vehicle not being in range of troops disembarking from the other end.
Yet this was done time and again and was considered fair tactics.
.

I don't know about wave serpents but vendettas are only about 20-30 points more than a devilfish (not to mention the base 200 points of firewarriors and devilfish to make the tactic work anyway) and have a GREAT deal more firepower and mission flexibility. Besides, TLOS in 5th edition pretty much nerfed the fof tactic; you can still fire your bazillion lascannons from your vendetta.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

G

They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

willydstyle wrote:
They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

Yeah, but no worse than the GW figs used half the guys at a normal local store once they've been unleashed with their bad glue jobs and too much undiluted paint. Looking like crap probably isn't the criteria we're looking for.

willydstyle wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

G

They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

1. I dont do tournaments

2. The assembled kit shown is not my own

3. I converted mine to have a deeper carrier bay, its no larger footprint but somewhat taller.


I do recommend the Corvus, got mine for AT-43 not 40K but I am keeping the paint schme generic. Not future tense, its assembled but unpainted being the lazy git I am when it comes to paint (hence part of why I dont do tournaments).

The original undecarriage sucks, there are three stubby feet and no underplate, just flat resin. You have to sort out both yourself, but as I recommend heightening the main carrier bay anyway its an underside conversion job one way or another. The good news is all that lack of detail is concealed, like under a minitures base, so you don't need to do too good a job to get away with it.

Still a flying transport for £12 cant be bad, and it is a very convenient size for 28mm gaming.


If you still turn your nose up at it, it makes a good Soundounk, Camel, Aquilla or Argus depending on your gaming needs.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

If you think I made a form of confession you have misread my point entirely. I choose a smaller transport to tidy up the game, the advantages are that big wings and tail do not get in the way of my own or opponents troops and hands. It is easier to conceal that is true, but honestly I couldnt care less if it was or wasn't. Its also far easier to transport. Convenience is the only in game advantage I seek.

I'm going to spread some full-size Valk cheer with this photo of my two (sadly in this photo, basecoat painted) Valk flying over my Cities of Death terrain.

For competitive play, take 2x Vendetta with Heavy Bolter sponsons and enjoy.

willydstyle wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

I used to have a regular opponent who used one of those as a rhino stand-in. The cargo compartment is pretty much exactly the same size as the old rhino, and it really doesn't look any worse than the rhino did.

Granted it would potentially look a little dated in a more modern Marine army, though.

On models being half-on/half-off:

GW Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!

Don't know why I didn't think to check before when it came up but I think that clearly shows you it's not possible to play with half of a model phasing out of existence.

Sidstyler wrote:On models being half-on/half-off:

GW Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!

Don't know why I didn't think to check before when it came up but I think that clearly shows you it's not possible to play with half of a model phasing out of existence.

Half off != Off.

Hey, you're back? Alright!

Models coming in from reserve partially onto the table are not moving off the table, they are still moving on.

The ruler is on the table.

kirsanth wrote:The ruler is on the table.

It is clearly off the table!

Actually a small portion of the ruler is on the table.

G

It's like someone should clarify the rules for tournament play. Oh wait ... they did!

RB.94D.02 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they cannot move on from the table edge without moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles forced to move faster than combat speed on the turn they move onto the table?
A: No, if a vehicle is so large it cannot totally fit onto the table when moving onto the table at combat speed, players are allowed to leave the back end of the vehicle hanging off the edge of the table [clarification]. If players are concerned about their model falling off the table they can mark the spot where it is supposed to be and then temporarily move the model fully onto the table. Note: While a vehicle is partially „hanging off the table‟, any access points off the table may not be used and any blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if the blast is technically off the table. (INAT 3.1)

Better off trying a new line of defense: "I'm sorry, your Guard army is TOO AWESOME to be deployed against my guys. I think that's an auto-win for me!" Perhaps a baseball-style luxury tax? "I deployed two rhinos and some AOBR tac marines, and you have three Vendettas. Gimme $20."

I really don't like it when people reference unofficial, fan-made documents like the INAT FAQ, but in any case, since GW apparently can't be arsed with that whole rules-writing thing, I'll accept the idea of marking where it's "supposed" to be, and leaving the model fully on the table, so long as you stick with the whole ruling about templates and access points, anyway.

Personally though I don't like it, because I can just imagine people doing that with all their vehicles and not just the valkyrie. Even if they're more than capable of getting them on the table normally.


Anyway, I still say cutting the tail off of a valkyrie because you personally don't consider the tail part of the vehicle for a deliberate in-game advantage is a dick move. Not only because of the in-game advantage but because you're defacing such an awesome model like that to begin with.

Y'know, it's threads like this that make me glad I don't play in competative games. How I choose to model my vehicles and miniatures is down to me, and what I think looks cool.

If I wanted to use the Valk model as a base for some other conversion, you can bet it's not because I'm thinking "Oooo! That means I can exploit the TLOS rules!", it's because I'm thinking "Heh, that'll look sweet!"

Is modelling my Sentinels to have a hunched gait modelling for advantage, or modelling to look badass stalking through terrain. Oh, wait, I forgot, real players don't use Sentinels...

Casual play FTW!!111!!!one!eleven!! (IMHO)

The issue is because removing the tail isn't a "sweet conversion." It's not because we are ultra-competitive.

No, but then the issue wasn't about modelling to have folding wings or about A10's. Or about using different models as counts as units, but they've all been brought up, and in many cases, shot down, as... errr, were.

The issue was about whether a practical decision for transportation or storage would be deemed as modelling for in game advantage. Somewhere along the line the OP, and anyone that dares to convert their models, is being painted out as cheating heathens out to exploit the rules.

Because sweeping generalisations aren't just for kids.

I just figure, hey, y'know, it's a game. Can't we just have fun blowing up tanks and mowing down hordes of infantry?

But... the problem is that its NOT a practical decision for transportation or storage. The valk's tail is one of the easiest magnetic conversions out there, since he is already planning on making a cut to remove the tail its actually easier to then use magnets than it is to somehow fix those gaping holes. So the conversion itself must not be the problem.

Cut the tail off to make the valk whatever length fits into your case, then stick the tail piece in another case. But oh no, you have to have another case to carry the tails? If you are playing IG you already have a lot of cases, one more isnt going to make a significant difference. Dump the tails into an old shoebox for all that it matters.



So there is a minor point that you will need one more box to put the tails in. A small bit of convenience to not have that one extra box, but it would be a convenience.

Against that we have obvious problems that the models arent tournement legal and that the smaller model is giving distinct advantages to the owner. First there is the smaller target that the valk presents, making it tougher on the battlefield. Secondly there is the smaller footprint, allowing the player to use the valk in places where it simply wouldnt fit otherwise.

The valk/ vendetta is an amazing buy, its not only a great vehicle in the IG list, it would be a fantastic vehicle in any armies list. For its price its an incredible bargain, it literally is the best vehicle in 40k.

It does have the disadvantage that its a large model, making it awkward to use in some circumstances. But if one were to model for advantage so as to remove that one drawback..... why then its possible to field full squadrons of valks easily.



Modelling for advantage is more likely to be called for extreme cases, such as making a unit of prone infantry, a misplaced weapon on a vehicle or a vehicle that has obviously been reduced in size.

A model change that gives no advantage (or even may be disadvantageous) to the owner is unlikely to raise any questions. But anything that removes the only disadvantage for a powerful model is very likely to be called.




But....if your local gaming group is all fine with this upgraded form of the valk then its ok. Just dont EXPECT other people to be fine with anything that gives this big of an improvement to a units gameplay.





Sliggoth

But... the problem is that its NOT a practical decision for transportation or storage. The valk's tail is one of the easiest magnetic conversions out there, since he is already planning on making a cut to remove the tail its actually easier to then use magnets than it is to somehow fix those gaping holes. So the conversion itself must not be the problem.

Ahh, yes, but he said he didn't have confidence in magnets, a point that has since been well refuted, but would still be valid from the PoV of the OP.

Now, that's be as it may, but I guess I have a problem with an assumpation that he's disguising an attempt to scam players with what he believes is a practical issue. Especially as (Rightly or wrongly) he doesn't believe that the tail counts for LOS anyhow, only for (as also pointed out) a rare occasion for emergency disembarkation.

Now, those points can be discussed without need for

Anyway, I still say cutting the tail off of a valkyrie because you personally don't consider the tail part of the vehicle for a deliberate in-game advantage is a dick move

This, however, does get my full support

Not only because of the in-game advantage but because you're defacing such an awesome model like that to begin with.

As I'm mainly a modeller, and a casual gamer, I'll continue to happily do what I want, and rely on my friends not to assume the worst.

Not that I'm likely to chop the tails off any Valks I manage get my hands on. I may be tempted to try and scratch build a UD-4L-a-like instead, but that's just me.

Sliggoth wrote:But... the problem is that its NOT a practical decision for transportation or storage. The valk's tail is one of the easiest magnetic conversions out there, since he is already planning on making a cut to remove the tail its actually easier to then use magnets than it is to somehow fix those gaping holes. So the conversion itself must not be the problem.

Cut the tail off to make the valk whatever length fits into your case, then stick the tail piece in another case. But oh no, you have to have another case to carry the tails? If you are playing IG you already have a lot of cases, one more isnt going to make a significant difference. Dump the tails into an old shoebox for all that it matters.



So there is a minor point that you will need one more box to put the tails in. A small bit of convenience to not have that one extra box, but it would be a convenience.

Against that we have obvious problems that the models arent tournement legal and that the smaller model is giving distinct advantages to the owner. First there is the smaller target that the valk presents, making it tougher on the battlefield. Secondly there is the smaller footprint, allowing the player to use the valk in places where it simply wouldnt fit otherwise.

if it's such an easy conversion, can you show me a picture of an example? i couldn't find any and i looked before starting this thread. i have experience with modelling with rare earth magnets and i don't have confidence in them holding the tail with movement especially over time. until you show me an example, your guess that it works is just that.. a guess.

as for a matter of convienence, paying $150+ for cases is NOT a minor point. some of us like to have our army look nice both inside the case and on the table and are willing to pay for that convience (heck, battlefoam's ENTIRE business premise revolves around this). i'm not paying that much so that i have to lug my stuff on two trips (including the customary after work to go dinner) across the parking lot while leaving my models unattended as that is neither convienent nor practical. also, if i take the time and effort to paint/finish my army and to cut custom foam to protect it, i'm not going to simply throw a big piece into a shoe box.

in the matter of my "true motives", all the consipiracy theorists can take off their tin foil hats. i don't own any valks and may never so i'm not gaining any modelling advantage by using this conversion. considering how strong the "ZOMG UR CHEEATIN!" opinion is (despite it being a fairly split vote) and the fact that battlefoam may have an alternative for me, i don't think i'd do even if i bought the models. <sarcasm> obviously, i spent the time over the past year voting over 3,000 times in the gallery looking for a possible in game modelling advantage... </sarcasm> ughhh. the only reason i considered this conversion is because it's a cool model but the size is not convienent due to the ridiculous space the valk takes up in the carrying case (not because of some in game reason). is it really that hard to debate a rules question without accusing a poster?

and sliggoth, i'd like to play in your store. apparently, you have a lot of terrain that a valkyrie mounted on a 6" base with the tail being mounted another few inches higher keeps bumping into. in my store, it would NEVER get a cover save due to it's height and the tail would never bump into ANYTHING. you have to post some pics of the impressive city fight games with multistory buildings that your post alludes to.

Admiral Arkright wrote:The issue was about whether a practical decision for transportation or storage would be deemed as modelling for in game advantage. Somewhere along the line the OP, and anyone that dares to convert their models, is being painted out as cheating heathens out to exploit the rules.

If you pay closer attention to the OP and all his posts since, you'd know that really wasn't the issue. If you need to remove the tail for easier transportation that's fine, some people even suggested using magnets if you were going down that route.

But even in the very first post, the OP made his intentions rather clear. He claims he can't make this work without removing the tail booms "permanently", claims that he wouldn't gain any advantage in game because the tail booms don't "count" and are apparently just there for decoration, and even the poll options are biased...which I really don't understand, why even bother with a poll if you word it in a way so that you're right no matter which option is chosen?

I also hate how he's acting like the valkyrie would be much more "broken" if the tail did count, by repeatedly pointing out the emergency disembarkation rules and how he could place models within 2" of the tail. The odds of this ever actually being an issue in-game are pretty slim if you ask me, and I'm not even sure what the issue here really is. Yes, if you had to perform an emergency disembarkation the rules clearly state you could place models anywhere within 2" of the hull of the vehicle. I'm perfectly willing to accept that as one of the few advantages of being so damn big, but if you ask me that's the only fair way to play the thing, because if you stick to the very strict definition of "hull" in regards to aircraft then it leads to rather bs situations like the one I mentioned before, where a valkyrie/vendetta could be hidden behind a building and immune to enemy fire, while being able to fire it's wing-mounted weapons just fine.

It just seems to me like some people are trying to bend the rules (or make up their own as it were, since GW didn't put much thought into it themselves apparently when designing the valkyrie) so that they get all the advantages of being such a large model with none of the disadvantages.

So there is a minor point that you will need one more box to put the tails in. A small bit of convenience to not have that one extra box, but it would be a convenience.

Hell, I think it would be much, much easier to just buy the Battlefoam tray and keep it in its own case/box/plastic bag, whatever. But no, we have to make the horde army fit in a single case. And we can't just not use the valkyrie, can we?

The valk/ vendetta is an amazing buy, its not only a great vehicle in the IG list, it would be a fantastic vehicle in any armies list. For its price its an incredible bargain, it literally is the best vehicle in 40k.

Indeed, I'd really love for Tau to get something similar designed for them. Honestly it fits our play style better anyway...

Ahh, yes, but he said he didn't have confidence in magnets, a point that has since been well refuted, but would still be valid from the PoV of the OP.

Why is it still valid? Rare earth magnets are small and strong enough to hold the tail booms in place just fine. If he's confident enough to go through with such a "conversion" in the first place, and has worked with magnets before like he says, then why does he still have doubts as to whether or not it will work?

We have some people saying that rare earth magnets are so strong that you can shake a tank while it's being held upside down and the magnetized parts won't budge. He claims the opposite, in his experience the bonds aren't that strong and you can't play with the models in game without them falling apart, and not only does he seem to be the only one I've ever seen on an online forum to say this, he's also (conveniently enough) not interested in even giving it a try with the valkyrie. It's much easier to just assume he's right and try to force me to accept it, making me look like a bad guy for calling him on his rules interpretations.

I'll admit I don't know the rules very well and I screw gak up all the time, but if I had any money I'd bet that GW never intended for the valkyrie to be played that way. Of course they won't make a ruling on it one way or the other because they stand to make more money off of people like warboss, whose decision to buy the model may be based solely on whether or not the wings/tail "count". Which is why I think they avoided answering that particular question in an otherwise brilliant FAQ, one of the few good ones they've actually put out otherwise.

If GW came out and said that wings/tail don't count as the hull (which is technically true in real life, but also remember that in real life you can still freaking shoot the wings and tail of an aircraft if you can see them and that they are obviously part of the vehicle!) and published it in an FAQ, that would be fine. I wouldn't agree with it but hey, they're the ones that designed the game and the rules for the model, who am I to argue? Until then though I'm sticking with common sense: if I can see part of the vehicle, I can shoot it (and it would likely have a 4+ cover save anyway if I did).

Now, that's be as it may, but I guess I have a problem with an assumpation that he's disguising an attempt to scam players with what he believes is a practical issue. Especially as (Rightly or wrongly) he doesn't believe that the tail counts for LOS anyhow, only for (as also pointed out) a rare occasion for emergency disembarkation.

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong way and I'm seeing ill-intent where there isn't any. What this basically boils down to then is the "hull vs. not hull" debate, and sadly my opinion on that is not about to change anytime soon, no matter how many homemade FAQs people reference. I'll concede that, according to the dictionary definition of the word, the wings/tail aren't hull, but this is clearly not how GW defines it.

If that's the case then what about vehicle turrets? I saw in another topic someone point out that a pintle-mounted weapon on a razorback couldn't shoot through the turret, which sounds like common sense right? But technically a turret is not part of the hull of a vehicle. Obviously not as big of an issue as the valkyrie but it's the same exact thing, if you stick to the very strict definition of the word then things like turrets and sponsons don't count as part of the hull. If you can't target a valkyrie's huge-ass tail then you should be able to shoot through turrets as well. Would warboss have a problem if I tried to shoot him with one of my hammerheads that had it's weapon sticking out over a hill, but claim it couldn't be shot because all he could see was the barrel of the gun and the turret it was mounted on, which doesn't count as the hull (or if he wanted to shoot at an engine nacelle)? Would he have a problem if I was fielding a land raider and shot at him with one of the lascannon sponsons, which happened to be the only part of the vehicle visible to him so he couldn't fire back?

I doubt he would. He's already shown himself to be a hypocrite by claiming that a chopped-down land raider is illegal (but it's easier to fit in the case like that and I shouldn't have to pay for bigger cases or foam to transport them because it's too much money and a pain in the ass to carry and I like how it looks!!!!), but somehow chopping a third of his vehicle off isn't. It's the same exact thing, except in the case of the land raider the dictionary actually supports his view, and obviously it's really hard to argue with the dictionary.

as for a matter of convienence, paying $150+ for cases is NOT a minor point. some of us like to have our army look nice both inside the case and on the table and are willing to pay for that convience (heck, battlefoam's ENTIRE business premise revolves around this). i'm not paying that much so that i have to lug my stuff on two trips (including the customary after work to go dinner) across the parking lot while leaving my models unattended as that is neither convienent nor practical. also, if i take the time and effort to paint/finish my army and to cut custom foam to protect it, i'm not going to simply throw a big piece into a shoe box.

You said you already had the cases. Like 5 of them. And you're greatly exaggerating the cost at that, the Sabol motor pool case I mentioned before is only about $40 (or at least both of mine were). If you can make them both fit in a single case then it won't cost you more than $80 for both the case and foam to do it.

Why does it matter how they look inside the case? So long as the models are kept from moving around and bumping into each other and getting broken, that's all that matters. Romeo's foam isn't just designed to look nice (which is what I guess you were talking about, custom cut > pluck and pick), it's designed to maximize the space inside your case so you can fit more models into it. Being concerned about the look of the inside of the case is just silly.

Why are the models unattended? Do you not have friends or family that go to the store with you that can watch them or actually help you carry them inside? And exactly how many cases are we talking about here, because I still carry around two cases for my rather small Tau army and I never have to make two trips to the car with them. In any case I'm not sure what to tell you, if you don't like having a lot of models to carry then you picked the wrong army, simple as that. If I was truly as worried about it as you are then I wouldn't have gone with one of the biggest armies in the game.

Well in any case, if you're truly unwilling to try and make this work then I'm afraid your only options are either 1) don't play with valkyries (they're so damn good though you can't not take them, so that isn't an option, obviously), or 2) don't play at the store. Or maybe you could just leave the models at the store, maybe work with the owner and see if they can't be put on display until you need them?

in the matter of my "true motives", all the consipiracy theorists can take off their tin foil hats.

Yeah, but this isn't quite the same as "9/11 was an inside job!". I don't think my assertions are completely off-the-wall insane, but whatever makes you feel better I guess.

i don't own any valks and may never so i'm not gaining any modelling advantage by using this conversion.

So this whole thread was a waste of time. Gotcha.

considering how strong the "ZOMG UR CHEEATIN!" opinion is (despite it being a fairly split vote) and the fact that battlefoam may have an alternative for me, i don't think i'd do even if i bought the models.

I wouldn't go by that poll though, as some of us are deliberately not voting (despite the fact that we disagree with you and do have a problem with the "conversion" because of how the poll options are worded. If you were truly interested in unbiased opinions you should have put a little more thought into that, instead of saying "It's either wrong despite the fact that I gain no advantage or it's right because I gain no advantage."

<sarcasm> obviously, i spent the time over the past year voting over 3,000 times in the gallery looking for a possible in game modelling advantage... </sarcasm>

...um...that was relevant.

If I understood that correctly then I assume you've seen pictures of this same "conversion" and wouldn't mind showing them to us?

the only reason i considered this conversion is because it's a cool model but the size is not convienent due to the ridiculous space the valk takes up in the carrying case (not because of some in game reason). is it really that hard to debate a rules question without accusing a poster?

Well, when you go about it the way you have then yeah. You're leaving very little room for actual debate and being very defensive.

I know the valkyrie is a cool model, but it's big, and there's really no way to get around it. It's part of what balances out the model, it takes up a lot of space and is very hard to hide, if not impossible. If it didn't have these drawbacks then it would just be insane...it's already way too cheap (points-wise) for what it does.


I mean am I really wrong on this? Should I just shut up and accept that, despite the fact that a valkyrie takes up half the table (not an exaggeration at all ) I can only actually shoot and see an area about as big as one and a half rhinos?

Why is it still valid? Rare earth magnets are small and strong enough to hold the tail booms in place just fine. If he's confident enough to go through with such a "conversion" in the first place, and has worked with magnets before like he says, then why does he still have doubts as to whether or not it will work?

Ahhh, yes, OP vs OP, what I meant, was that the opening post is valid because it approaches the subject from the assumption that it would have to be a permenant conversion as opposed to a reversable one.

Now, I feel that there would be several methods to make it a reversable conversion, and that magnets are only one of them, but hey

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong way and I'm seeing ill-intent where there isn't any.

That's all I'm asking, the rules issues I don't have a great deal of issue with, as I said, I'm only a casual gamer.

Now, to be fair to all sides, I'd have thought the discussion should have turned into a discussion on modelling options, rather then assume he's trying to screw over his opponents, but I think both sides have been guilty of escalation over essentially petty issues. Just trying to defuse things a bit.

Sidstyler wrote:,

1) I also hate how he's acting like the valkyrie would be much more "broken" if the tail did count, by repeatedly pointing out the emergency disembarkation rules and how he could place models within 2" of the tail. The odds of this ever actually being an issue in-game are pretty slim if you ask me, and I'm not even sure what the issue here really is. Yes, if you had to perform an emergency disembarkation the rules clearly state you could place models anywhere within 2" of the hull of the vehicle.

2)It just seems to me like some people are trying to bend the rules (or make up their own as it were, since GW didn't put much thought into it themselves apparently when designing the valkyrie) so that they get all the advantages of being such a large model with none of the disadvantages.


3)Hell, I think it would be much, much easier to just buy the Battlefoam tray and keep it in its own case/box/plastic bag, whatever. But no, we have to make the horde army fit in a single case. And we can't just not use the valkyrie, can we?

4)Why is it still valid? Rare earth magnets are small and strong enough to hold the tail booms in place just fine. If he's confident enough to go through with such a "conversion" in the first place, and has worked with magnets before like he says, then why does he still have doubts as to whether or not it will work?

5) Of course they won't make a ruling on it one way or the other because they stand to make more money off of people like warboss, whose decision to buy the model may be based solely on whether or not the wings/tail "count". Which is why I think they avoided answering that particular question in an otherwise brilliant FAQ, one of the few good ones they've actually put out otherwise.

6)If GW came out and said that wings/tail don't count as the hull

7) Would he have a problem if I was fielding a land raider and shot at him with one of the lascannon sponsons, which happened to be the only part of the vehicle visible to him so he couldn't fire back?

I doubt he would. He's already shown himself to be a hypocrite by claiming that a chopped-down land raider is illegal (but it's easier to fit in the case like that and I shouldn't have to pay for bigger cases or foam to transport them because it's too much money and a pain in the ass to carry and I like how it looks!!!!), but somehow chopping a third of his vehicle off isn't. It's the same exact thing, except in the case of the land raider the dictionary actually supports his view, and obviously it's really hard to argue with the dictionary.

8) Why are the models unattended? Do you not have friends or family that go to the store with you that can watch them or actually help you carry them inside?

9)If I was truly as worried about it as you are then I wouldn't have gone with one of the biggest armies in the game.

10) So this whole thread was a waste of time. Gotcha.

11)I wouldn't go by that poll though, as some of us are deliberately not voting

12) If I understood that correctly then I assume you've seen pictures of this same "conversion" and wouldn't mind showing them to us?

13)

the only reason i considered this conversion is because it's a cool model but the size is not convienent due to the ridiculous space the valk takes up in the carrying case (not because of some in game reason). is it really that hard to debate a rules question without accusing a poster?

Well, when you go about it the way you have then yeah. You're leaving very little room for actual debate and being very defensive.

14) I mean am I really wrong on this? Should I just shut up and accept that, despite the fact that a valkyrie takes up half the table (not an exaggeration at all ) I can only actually shoot and see an area about as big as one and a half rhinos?

ok... i'll address this one point by point as that's the only way to respond to a troll who long ago stopped posting about the issue at hand and has simply just switched to commenting on a poster (in this case me)

1) i never said the valk rules were broken; i was just pointing out a consequence of saying the tail is part of the hull. as for how unlikely it is, it happened to me a month and a half ago with my tau. a devilfish got immoblized in the shooting phase and was assaulted in the following assault phase and destroyed while the exits were blocked; my embarked firewarriors had to disembark via emergency disembarkation. yeah, that's really exotic and i'm sure i'm the only one who has ever had a vehicle immobilized first and then destroyed in the assault phase in the entirety of 5th edition because it's such a rare occurence.

2) i'm not bending anything. i simply asked a question about a rule and you prefer to troll about the intentions of the OP (me) instead of discussing the rules.

3) please show me where i said i want to fit everything in one case. this is example #1 of you simply lying about what i've said. i said i'd prefer not to carry 3 cases (one of which is the double size GW one) as it's a PITA. two would be my preferred limit.

4) i know, it's amazing that i would use my first hand experience with modelling rare earth magnets several different times (my tau battlesuits on their bases, my belial model with removable weapons, my attack bikes with interchangeable weapons, my missles on my tau vehicles) over the opinion of other internet posters. maybe it's the rare earth magnets i've picked up in two separate states that somehow just unluckily ended up being bad despite purchasing them at different times and stores... or maybe they just don't handle torque well (i mistakenly called it normal force earlier).

5) please show me where i commented on the wing not being a part of the hull. this is example #2 of you simply lying about what i've said. YOU"RE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS MENTIONED THE WINGS NOT BEING A PART OF THE HULL AND USING THEM IN AN EXAMPLE FOR SHOOTING AND LOS. no one has disagreed with your ridiculous examples yet you seem to blame me for doing so. if you're going to disagree with me then at least use the examples i've given instead of making up your own and attributing them to me.

6) same as 5. yet again claiming that someone (namely me) is saying the wings aren't hull. at least you're consistent... wrong but consistent. example #3.

7) yes, i consider cutting a landraider in half to be illegal and modelling for advantage. here's a little set of diagrams (one view of a horizontally cut LR and another vertically cut) at the bottom of the post to make it easy for you. i do consider cutting off the black areas to be different cases between your two examples. for the landraider, you're cutting off the real life definition of the hull and an in game part of the vehicle to which weapons and exit/entry points are a part off. for the valkyrie, you're cutting off something that in real life isn't the hull and in game has no weapons or entry points and for which only around half the people consider it to be the hull. yeah, i see a difference between the two. as for your devilfish example, if GW decided to remodel the devilfish and add thin fins jutting out 6" from each side that served no purpose other looking cool, then i wouldn't have a problem with someone cutting them off. using the current devilfish is not because the engines or fins don't jut out.

8) yes, because i should need to drag other people to carry my things for me while i go play with toy soldiers at the hobby store. i didn't grow up in mayberry like you so i don't trust people i don't know well (which includes the random people that walk into a games store). while i don't think anyone who actually plays 40k would take the stuff i can't hold them responsible if someone does and no one notices (and neither would the police or any judge). my items are MY responsibility and i've seen people that didn't believe that get stuff stolen at FLGS as well as conventions multiple times.

9) yeah, it sucks that i didn't magically forsee the valkyrie coming out in the guard codex released in may 2009 when i finished building my guard army in 2003. you're right, it's 100% my fault that i didn't predict that GW would come out with a model that takes up 3x the storage space of a leman russ 6 years after i finished collecting/building/painting my IG.

10) no, only your last half dozen responses as they have mostly addressed various posters (mainly me) instead of the issue at hand.

11) it's a good thing these unseen masses that all agree with you have you as their spokesperson.

12) do you even read my posts? example #4 of you lying about what i said. i said I DIDN'T FIND THE CONVERSION and asked for those who say the conversion is easy to find an example. i looked and didn't find one.

13) it's hard not to be defensive when someone like you comes out swinging everytime they post and devotes the majority of their efforts into debating the ulterior motives and character of the poster instead of the rules question at hand.

14) i can't tell if you're exagerating or not since you in all seriousness use such ludicrous examples as counterpoints. if you're serious, then you need to play on a regulation 4x6 table instead of the seatback tray table on whatever airline you normally game on.

Admiral Arkright wrote:Now, to be fair to all sides, I'd have thought the discussion should have turned into a discussion on modelling options, rather then assume he's trying to screw over his opponents, but I think both sides have been guilty of escalation over essentially petty issues. Just trying to defuse things a bit.

but accusing a person of screwing over opponents with models that he doesn't even own is easier than logically debating the rules. besides, repeating something that's incorrect on the internet makes it right eventually, right sid? either way sid, you can feel free to lie and attribute whatever ideas or motives you want to me as i've gotten what i wanted from this thread (an answer to the question which is that dakka is divided on the issue so i won't do it) and don't feel the need to argue about something that i don't even own and may never. btw, congrats, you're the second person on my ignore list!

@warboss: Sorry, can't help myself. I have to ask, was I your first? Was it as good for you as it was for me?

Also @Warboss: Zee diagram, she means nozeeing!


NOZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEING!

troll

I'm not trolling. I'm a really good spammer but I don't troll people.

I'll admit that maybe I got a little carried away, but personally I think you're more guilty of trolling than I am. Some of your comments seemed to serve no other purpose than to try and egg me on further.

In any case this is starting to get old, I think we need to stop. Or at least I'm going to after this.

1) I wasn't trying to imply that emergency disembarkation in general didn't happen, I was talking specifically about the valkyrie. I think it would be rare that all the exits on a valkyrie are blocked because it's so large, but in the event that they ever were then you deploy anywhere within 2" of the hull like it says.

2) Fair enough.

3) How big is your Guard army anyway? How many cases do you carry now?

4) I know it sounded kinda bad, but it's honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone speak ill of rare earth magnets. So you can see why I'd be a bit skeptical after hearing people constantly sing their praises.

5-6) I'll admit I might be putting words in your mouth in that case. Usually people don't consider the wings or tail part of the hull and maintain that the hull is strictly the fuselage. I just assumed you were in that camp based on your comments even though you never brought it up.

7) Now that I'll have to call BS on, there's no way in hell you can say that "only half" of the 40k community thinks the tail counts as hull. You can't judge that based on the Dakka poll alone because Dakka only represents a small fraction of the people who play this game.

Also, why are you assuming they "serve no purpose"? Is it so hard to believe that GW could possibly intend for a vehicle's size to be taken into consideration when fielding it? Even though the tail basically does nothing, you can't just ignore it and pretend it isn't there, especially when it makes up such a considerable part of the vehicle. I honestly believe this is meant to help balance it out, the valkyrie is just too good for it's point cost otherwise. The only real downside to fielding one is the huge amount of space it takes up and the guarantee that you'll almost never get cover on the average board.

But this is ultimately pointless. I'm obviously not budging on the issue and neither are you. And the odds of this actually being an issue on the average board are slim, because I'll more often than not be able to see the entire vehicle anyway. So...I've pretty much wasted my time bitching about nothing, lmao.

8) It was just a thought. I live too far away to indulge in pick-up games, so whenever I play 40k I'm usually with my brother.

9) But still, IG has always been a horde army. I'm just saying, if transport was an issue for me I personally wouldn't have picked the largest model-count army in the game.

If it were me though, honestly, I'd just buy bigger cases. Yeah I know, I'm not made of money either, but if safety and convenience is that important then it might be a worthwhile investment, because I really don't think the GW cases can cut it in this case. If the valkyrie will even fit in the large case, you're likely only going to be able to fit two of them all by themselves in one case, but I don't actually have a GW case so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

I'm interested in hearing if it works out or not.

10) Nuh-uh, I'm talking about the valkyrie.

11) "Unseen"? willydstyle was one of the first posters in the thread and he said as much himself. Not everyone that votes in the poll posts in the topic, so I'd say it's a fair bet that there are people not posting who also didn't vote. But admittedly I'm just making a big assumption.

12) I guess it's fair to say I misunderstood then. Honestly I had no idea what you were talking about, I wasn't trying to lie/troll/whatever the feth.

13) The only reason I bothered to post in this thread is because you declared that people who viewed the tail as part of the hull and wouldn't allow you to chop it off as hypocrites if they allowed any conversion whatsoever.

I came into the thread with the intent to defend my own personal viewpoint since I felt as if I was being called out, so if I came out swinging that was why.

14) It was an exaggeration, I was trying to be funny at that point and I guess I failed.

btw, congrats, you're the second person on my ignore list!

And funnily enough I don't read this until I've already wasted an hour of my time typing up this ridiculously long fething post.

In any case, congrats on letting a Dakka poll make up your mind for you, I guess. Personally though I think you should have just stopped being cheap and gotten a case big enough for them. I'm not made of money either, but face facts, this is an expensive hobby and if you really cared that much about safety and convenience, spending a little money on a nice ride for your valkyries wouldn't have been a problem. I'm as broke as they come at the moment but I still plan on getting a nice big case for mine.

I still think the tail counts as hull. No, maybe not literally, but considering that there's a huge chunk of the model considered "invisible" if you do take it literally, I think an exception should be made. And yeah, in case anyone is wondering, that's how I would play with mine, too. If you can see the tail or a wing then it can be shot (though if more than half the model is obscured I get cover ).

@Gwar!: What did that diagram mean, anyway? Were you just making a joke at my expense or was it literally bs? I mean warboss's, not the one you posted.

Gwar! wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:On models being half-on/half-off:

GW Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!

Don't know why I didn't think to check before when it came up but I think that clearly shows you it's not possible to play with half of a model phasing out of existence.

Half off != Off.

Actually while your statement is true, I think you are missing something there.

A model that has part of it on the table, and part of it off the table makes the following statements true
A) The model is on the table
B) The model is off the table.

Both are valid statements. It does not matter that a model half-off is also half-on, because you are making a status true that must remain false, which is status B.

...exactly! That's totally what I meant to say before.

Admiral Arkright wrote:Y'know, it's threads like this that make me glad I don't play in competative games. How I choose to model my vehicles and miniatures is down to me, and what I think looks cool.

If I wanted to use the Valk model as a base for some other conversion, you can bet it's not because I'm thinking "Oooo! That means I can exploit the TLOS rules!", it's because I'm thinking "Heh, that'll look sweet!"

(IMHO)

I modelled all my previous SW army as true scale. So everything was bigger, Much bigger, even the RHino's and the Preds, The preds were massive, nearly as big as a bane blade. This caused alot of problems as they could not relistcly hide behind cover as if I had use the original size.

I just agreed with my opponent before hand that the last 2 inches of the pred did not count and to ignore that. As for the height we both agreed to leave that as it was.

Gwar! wrote:@warboss: Sorry, can't help myself. I have to ask, was I your first? Was it as good for you as it was for me?

no, no (if you mean my ignored list). if that was the case i wouldn't have welcomed you back. i view you like gandalf views gollum: you serve a valuable purpose in answering RAW questions truthfully even if you occasionally bite off a finger while doing so. if you mean my MS Paint "artwork", yes, you were my forum first (with the 300 RAW vs RAI pic).

Lets see....to start with lets talk about ease of the conversion.

You are already cutting off the tail, so that step is going to be done either way.

Next one has to either cobble together some sort of patch over the hole so that the model still has some sort of appeal; or else one uses all of that empty space to make a magnetic attachment point. Usually magnets in 40k are trouble because they have to be inserted into tight spots and have to be fiddled around to make them fit just so. Here we have plenty fo space.

Worried about the strength of the magnets holding? Try filling much of the rest of hole with green stuff and inserting a steel rod or two. Then fill up most of the rest of the other hole with clay or green stuff, leaving just a couple insertion points for the rods. The plastic is likely to break before the new connection would fail.

So the conversion is easier than most because we have more room to work with, the cutting step is going to be done either way, and we have to create no new visible parts. The room available allows for a truly strong connection as well, far stronger than most such.



As far as the tail of the valk bumping into things...well yes. Try fielding 9 valks with tails, for that matter just lay out where one squadron of three would be able to fit. Then layout where three of your cropped versions would fit. Makes a major difference on how they can be placed, doesnt it?

As I said before, one of the very few disadvantages the valk/ vendetta has is its large footprint. Modelling for advantage removes this problem, and suddenly fielding 9 of those suckers becomes a viable option. Running flocks of the full size models puts real restraints on where your army can be deployed and move. Cutting off those tails suddenly makes the models MUCH easier to play.


I wouldnt let someone use one of the cut down models locally because then there is no arguement to stop someone from showing up the next week with 9 of them. It just removes the one drawback from the best vehicle in the game.



Sliggoth


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Had this thought just a moment too late, since this model gives us a really nice bit of room to work with it might make sense to not use magnets at all for this connection. Take a trip to the hardware store and pick up a bit of plastic plumbing pipe. That stuff connects with a slip joint, so just glue a piece into each end of the model and then slip the pipes together...rock solid connection. Can use a magnet inside the pipe if one plans on slinging the model around wildly in combat to make it lock in place, altho the pipe connection should handle all normal movement. And since its all plastic, regular glue should be fine. Easy to cut as well.


Sliggoth

I was reading about the GW and INAT FAQ regarding the valk, and there is a definition on what constitutes the "hull" of the model, and it definitely includes the tail..thus if you clip it you are reducing the size of the "hull" as defined by the FAQ....

warboss wrote:i don't own any valks and may never so i'm not gaining any modelling advantage by using this conversion.

So: modeling advice irrelevant, rules research irrelevant, thread irrelevant.

Thanks for playing.

Now moved from "hmm, I wonder if I can offer advice to a fellow Guard player" to a debate about how imaginary mods on a nonexistent model may fit in cases to be purchased at a later date could effect play in future games.

Sid,

How familiar are you with the new Guard FAQ? The reason for my asking is because it has this line in the errata under the Valk section:

Access Points. The text should read:
Valkyries and Vendettas have one access point on
each side of the hull and one at the rear.

Emphasis mine. Because as we all know you can't have an object extend beyond one of it's sides, I contend that there are only one of two conclusions that can be accurately drawn from this:

1. Access points are at the tips of the wings and the far edge of the tail crosspiece.

2. The hull includes neither wings nor tail.

Now, I've read the INAT FAQ, and I'm entirely willing to respect their rulings, as they appear to fix more than they break, but from the point of view of someone who is unconcerned with third party material, I'd be interested to know how this is rationalized. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

Dracos wrote:It does not matter that a model half-off is also half-on, because you are making a status true that must remain false, which is status B.

The restriction is against moving a model off the table, which could easily invalidate this assertion.

daedalus wrote: Because as we all know you can't have an object extend beyond one of it's sides,

This is not true. An object cannot extend past all of its own sides, but a large number of things extend beyond one of its own sides.

The telling fact on the access points is the doors, though, I daresay.

kirsanth wrote:

daedalus wrote: Because as we all know you can't have an object extend beyond one of it's sides,

This is not true. An object cannot extend past all of its own sides, but a large number of things extend beyond one of its own sides.

The telling fact on the access points is the doors, though, I daresay.

Let's be logical here, folks! If you want to hack the tail boom off of your aircraft, that's fine... but as it would crash shortly off taking off I'll only let you move for one turn in one direction before being automatically immobilized.


On a more serious note, things like this make me glad I don't play competitively.... my Sentinel is a little lower than yours because I modeled it in a running pose. Does THAT mean I'm modeling for advantage? How about those two Guardsman who are kneeling instead of standing?

My goodness.

Owain wrote:Let's be logical here, folks! If you want to hack the tail boom off of your aircraft, that's fine... but as it would crash shortly off taking off I'll only let you move for one turn in one direction before being automatically immobilized.

This is YMDC, not a place of reason. This is the dark place where turret mounted template weapons cease to work, Ogryn aren't Ogryn whenever someone bothered to find out their name, and the Inquisition suddenly became one day unable to requisition any LRBTs because they only started coming in three-packs. Common sense has no place here and any attempt to rationalize using real-world physics is against the rules and invalid to the debate, otherwise you shouldn't have even gotten this far and you should still be stuck on how the Valk can sit still for however many turns it feels like in midair. It's a SKIMMER, not a FLYER. They are different rules.

Owain wrote:
On a more serious note, things like this make me glad I don't play competitively.... my Sentinel is a little lower than yours because I modeled it in a running pose. Does THAT mean I'm modeling for advantage? How about those two Guardsman who are kneeling instead of standing?

Not to me, but I don't care if you play with soda can drop pods and shoebox land raiders. Modeling is awesome and looks really good when real effort is put into it, but a lack of it doesn't ruin my immersion. I too also have kneeling guardsmen and even GW-made snipers that are prone.

I do definitely agree with your overall feeling on competitive play. I was planning on going to Adepticon, but stuff like this makes me second-guess it. The general opinion is that if you reduce footprint on ANYTHING, then it must be for advantage. If you want to get really nauseous, check out some skimmer base height arguments. That 1/8" actually does matter that much to some people.

Back to topic, my argument is that it doesn't matter one way or the other if it doesn't have the tail, because the tail (and even the wings) aren't part of the hull per my previous post.

Oh, also, google "blended wing". If we're figuring it out now, imagine what could exist in the 38,000 years from now.

Owain wrote:
My goodness.

Quite.

I'm not Gwar!, but it looks like the diagram takes a square, bisects it several times, rearranges the pieces into a rectangle, and then compares the area of each. Apparently the area of a rectangle is greater than the equivalent square, spatial cognizance is broken, and my head explodes.

No, I meant warboss's graph. What exactly was that meant to convey? That the tail is indeed a pretty big chunk of the valkyrie to just ignore?

Anyway, I think I need to make a clarification (well, to anyone who hasn't put me on ignore yet...and while I personally have nothing against warboss I think it's pretty stupid to do that, especially after he admitted he was doing little more than wasting our time). I'm not exactly trying to say you guys are wrong, the fuselage of an aircraft is considered the "hull", the wings and tail are just that, wings and tail. I'm not trying to say that isn't the case, all I'm saying is that playing with the RAW in this instance is just a tad nonsensical, because that little oversight in the rules would mean that a good half of your vehicle technically doesn't even exist (not actually having a valkyrie model to judge yet makes it difficult to say, but I'd say wings+tail=at least half the total size of the model, right?), which is obviously bs.

I'll go with RAW rulings in some cases, but not this one. Not ever, unless I was literally forced to, like say at a tournament (which I would probably never attend again after the fact). When GW published these rules they hadn't yet released a model like the valkyrie, issues like this would almost never come up with any other model because they're all shaped like bricks. The only ones I can really think of are Tau devilfish and Dark Eldar raiders, since if we go by the same logic used for the valkyrie, engines and useless bladed projections aren't part of the hull, either.

So, in other words, you guys are right and I agree with you: wings and tail aren't part of the hull of an aircraft. But in terms of the game and for the sake of fair play, they should be considered as such because just ignoring those parts of the vehicle causes some pretty big problems. At least for me, it seems...


And also, I really don't care what people do to their models, so long as it's within reason and you aren't trying to gain some kind of advantage doing it. Kneeling infantry and running models are okay with me because they can be assembled that way...as for models that are prone or on elaborate bases I believe the rulebook says you assume they're of average height anyway. It's a little trickier for me in other cases, like that Catachan thread that was mentioned where the guy has awesome Old Crow vehicles instead of sentinels...it's awesome and obviously wasn't done to try and cheat anyone, but considering they're about half the height and at least twice as long (judging by the looks of them anyway, maybe less than that even) it does present a problem in game. But personally, someone who shows up at the table with chopped and dropped land raiders or valkyries that can somehow fly without wings or tails is when I start to have a problem, especially in the case of the land raider because that's just taking the piss.

If you want to get really nauseous, check out some skimmer base height arguments. That 1/8" actually does matter that much to some people.

I just use the stems that came with the models. Eliminates all argument at that point, you have to mount them on the base they came with and the bases usually come with four different lengths of stem.

In any case, I don't have a problem with an 1/8 of an inch. In the valkyrie's case though, this isn't a mere 1/8 of an inch we're talking about, and I think I have every right to question that.


And another thing, even though warboss is ignoring me now, I still think it's a really bad idea to let Dakka influence that kind of decision. Buy whatever the hell you guys want, don't let someone on the internet talk you out of it. And hell, none of you people even really know me anyway, I may sound pretty dead-set against the idea of cut-down valkyries in this thread but I could turn right around and play several games with you regardless.

I've not seen the kit so i don't know if the tail part are hollow. But couldn't you pint the tail? If you used a logn enough pin ut didn't actually glue it that coudl make the tail removable.

Sidstyler wrote:

Anyway, I think I need to make a clarification (well, to anyone who hasn't put me on ignore yet...and while I personally have nothing against warboss I think it's pretty stupid to do that, especially after he admitted he was doing little more than wasting our time). I'm not exactly trying to say you guys are wrong, the fuselage of an aircraft is considered the "hull", the wings and tail are just that, wings and tail. I'm not trying to say that isn't the case, all I'm saying is that playing with the RAW in this instance is just a tad nonsensical, because that little oversight in the rules would mean that a good half of your vehicle technically doesn't even exist (not actually having a valkyrie model to judge yet makes it difficult to say, but I'd say wings+tail=at least half the total size of the model, right?), which is obviously bs.
I'll go with RAW rulings in some cases, but not this one. Not ever, unless I was literally forced to, like say at a tournament (which I would probably never attend again after the fact). When GW published these rules they hadn't yet released a model like the valkyrie, issues like this would almost never come up with any other model because they're all shaped like bricks. The only ones I can really think of are Tau devilfish and Dark Eldar raiders, since if we go by the same logic used for the valkyrie, engines and useless bladed projections aren't part of the hull, either.

From the two Valks that I have sitting up on my top shelf collecting dust, I can say that when put together, the wings are about as large as the hull.

Sidstyler wrote:
So, in other words, you guys are right and I agree with you: wings and tail aren't part of the hull of an aircraft. But in terms of the game and for the sake of fair play, they should be considered as such because just ignoring those parts of the vehicle causes some pretty big problems. At least for me, it seems...

You know, it sounds like it is an absurd TFG type of thing to demand that the wings and tail don't count, but honestly, I've played it either way, and it doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as you'd think it would. Most blast marker weapons hit within range anyway, but front AV 13 doesn't hold up very long due to the "Ahhh! It's big, kill it kill it now!" effect the thing has in general.

Sidstyler wrote:
And also, I really don't care what people do to their models, so long as it's within reason and you aren't trying to gain some kind of advantage doing it. Kneeling infantry and running models are okay with me because they can be assembled that way...as for models that are prone or on elaborate bases I believe the rulebook says you assume they're of average height anyway. It's a little trickier for me in other cases, like that Catachan thread that was mentioned where the guy has awesome Old Crow vehicles instead of sentinels...it's awesome and obviously wasn't done to try and cheat anyone, but considering they're about half the height and at least twice as long (judging by the looks of them anyway, maybe less than that even) it does present a problem in game. But personally, someone who shows up at the table with chopped and dropped land raiders or valkyries that can somehow fly without wings or tails is when I start to have a problem, especially in the case of the land raider because that's just taking the piss.

I agree with the land raider. The reason why I feel as I do about the Valk is because of the fact that it's already so much harder already to deny line of sight or grant a cover save to. If someone were to challenge my views on the matter, I'd give them the hit and not think any less of it, but do so under the request that we have a thorough discussion on if they should count or not after the fact, time permitting.

Sidstyler wrote:
And another thing, even though warboss is ignoring me now, I still think it's a really bad idea to let Dakka influence that kind of decision. Buy whatever the hell you guys want, don't let someone on the internet talk you out of it. And hell, none of you people even really know me anyway, I may sound pretty dead-set against the idea of cut-down valkyries in this thread but I could turn right around and play several games with you regardless.

Well, I won't go into how childish I feel the use of the ignore button is. If you're resistant to differing opinions, why post online or interact with other people in ANY setting? I love it when people tell me I'm wrong; it helps keep me from becoming solipsistic. As far as letting Dakka influence decisions, the reason why I look at anything in YMDC is because I figure that's representative of what the worst TFG I run into will throw out there. Also, for arguably "soft" issues like this, Dakka has a way of shaping public opinion. I know even before I started posting here, I'd search for stuff I had questions on and this was one of the top sites that popped up. Also, several other people at the FLGS here visit this site regularly. It's a much smaller world than it used to be.

daedalus wrote:Well, I won't go into how childish I feel the use of the ignore button is. If you're resistant to differing opinions, why post online or interact with other people in ANY setting? I love it when people tell me I'm wrong; it helps keep me from becoming solipsistic. As far as letting Dakka influence decisions, the reason why I look at anything in YMDC is because I figure that's representative of what the worst TFG I run into will throw out there. Also, for arguably "soft" issues like this, Dakka has a way of shaping public opinion. I know even before I started posting here, I'd search for stuff I had questions on and this was one of the top sites that popped up. Also, several other people at the FLGS here visit this site regularly. It's a much smaller world than it used to be.

i have no problem with differing opinions and people telling me i'm wrong regarding a rules question. i DO have a problem with someone telling me over and over that i'm cheating and lying about WHY i choose a certain viewpoint. i post questions here to see what the opinions are regarding muddy rules questions, not to have my intentions and character questioned. if i believe someone is trolling (IMO debating the motivations of the poster instead a half dozen times instead of the rules qualifies), i have four options:

1) ignore the thread (unlikely in this case as i'm the OP and interested in the debate and possible answers)

2) report the thread (see above)

3) keep responding until the thread is closed by a mod

4) ignore the troll

I chose the last one.

As for my late night midshift do it yourself picture, it's supposed to illustrate the various examples of supposed modelling for advantage. sid compared chopping off the tail of a valk (the black part) to cutting half a landraider off (also the black part, one view with the bottom half missing and the other the left half missing). i do see a clear difference in the two examples.

The hormagants in my example were not modified in any manner, nor was their base. The whole model was attached to the whole base. Sideways.

I would have issues with someone doing that with hormagants in a game, for generally rules related reasons. The same would apply to only attaching half (or 3/4) of a model. ymmv


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you acknowledge it could be a problem, realize it will be a problem. At least occationally.

This seems to be almost too logical (to me) to bring to a forum -- as it comes across as looking for an excuse to do something that you understand can, will, or should be an issue.

kirsanth wrote:The hormagants in my example were not modified in any manner, nor was their base. The whole model was attached to the whole base. Sideways.

I would have issues with someone doing that with hormagants in a game, for generally rules related reasons. The same would apply to only attaching half (or 3/4) of a model. ymmv

My nids didn't have instructions for assembly. I thought they were supposed to be modeled sleeping. Nids sleep too right?

Relax, I kid. I kid.

kirsanth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you acknowledge it could be a problem, realize it will be a problem. At least occationally.

This seems to be almost too logical (to me) to bring to a forum -- as it comes across as looking for an excuse to do something that you understand can, will, or should be an issue.

Yeah, but with the thousands of things I didn't think would be a problem that turn out to be a problem, I have to assume that most things are. Case in point: All the "seasoned veterans" out there who still think that FNP doesn't include AP2.
I know for all of this "fuzzy" stuff, they say work it out with your opponent beforehand, but that results in a 30+ minute long conversation of stipulation with each person you play, which no longer makes playing even worth it.

Mount with magnets and/or pins. It will be strong enough. Put large ones in the big part of the hull and smaller ones in the parts that come off.

I'm OK with shortening it for a "conversion" as long as you keep it on the high stand. That way, every frakkin' model on the board can see it anyway!

Homer

I can't believe this is still be discussed. It's obvious modeling for an advantage in gaming.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I can't believe this is still be discussed. It's obvious modeling for an advantage in gaming.

G

lol, i think you take the name of this forum too seriously. just because it's called "you make da call" doesn't mean you personally make the call and your word is final.