Gwar! wrote:You are making the assumption Hull means Hull. This Is GW, they could have meant hull to include wings and such. The problem is a model of the scale of the Valk has never been made before, so the 5th ed rules were not written with it in mind.

One must make that assumption otherwise the entire passage is meaningless (same applies to any sentence in the rulebook). Hull has no meaning as a game term, therefore one must defer to its definition in the English language, lest the passage have no meaning at all.

Or do you have a better idea?

Hey, don't get pissy at me because GW can't write.

Might want to ratchet down the sensitivity meter a few hundred notches--no one's getting pissy.

After reading whole argument.. atleast i know the solution that works for me.
Do not use valkyries in non-apocalypse games. and in apoc games you can use them as fliers

I play demons, its not an issue for me either

I posit that the wings are indeed hull to be consistent.
Since Hull can encompass the skin of a vehicle rather than just the body, the wings/tail should be valid targets. Heaven forbid the heavy weapon of choice make ugly holes in the wings of the Valkyrie. Its not going to just walk it off. Landing gear and VTOL thrusters are included in the wings suggesting they have some significance.

Few would argue that one would have to draw LOS to the fuselage of a Thunderhawk, Phoenix Raider, Hellblade, or Barracuda. Making an exception for the Valkyrie isn't appropriate then.

As for disembarking, GW's loose rules strike again. I'd bring it to the attention of a tournament organizer beforehand.

I would make the side note, the term hull technicaly only applies to Ships, Zeplens & Tanks. A Valkalry doesn't actualy have a Hull, it has a fuselage. To close of a reading of this would indicate Valkalries could never hide.

How ever I'd agree with Oldgrue that the wings should be considered part of the Targetable Model. It's decerative equipment that's supposed to be ignored for LOS, such as antenne.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I would make the side note, the term hull technicaly only applies to Ships, Zeplens & Tanks. A Valkalry doesn't actualy have a Hull, it has a fuselage. To close of a reading of this would indicate Valkalries could never hide.

Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Danny Internets wrote:

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I would make the side note, the term hull technicaly only applies to Ships, Zeplens & Tanks. A Valkalry doesn't actualy have a Hull, it has a fuselage. To close of a reading of this would indicate Valkalries could never hide.

Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what English (The Language Spoken in England and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...

Alright, I'll give that this version's definition (part 2b) is vegue, so it could be applied. [An airship is boyancy lifted craft] But what constitutes a 'main body' is equaly vegue.

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

Geez, this is pointless. If you really want to get technical with this "From the HULL" arguement, then you are all wrong.

First of all I would consider the wings a major part of the valkerie. If you dont think so I already said that you can just angle it down in such a way that it CAN capture ground objectives anyways. Wether with the main body or the wing, which I consider a main part. What you cannot do is glue LONG antaenas to the thing that hang low to the ground. Is there a rule I missed that says "SKimmers cannot capture ground based objectives?" If not then this argument has no merit as long as SOME MAIN PART of the valk is close enough to the obj. I would say the wings are a main part. Otherwise you can't shoot them and you can shoot thru them as they are then considered decorative.

Secondly going back to the "HULL" arguement if you want to really be anal going that route then a Valkrie cannot capture ANYTHING at all. Its a plane. Planes do not have "Hulls" they have fuselages.

ARGH

Are people actually arguing dictionary definitions of hull when the rulebook says on page 72 "hull (including its legs and other limbs)" when discussing walkers? By what dictionary definition of hull are the legs of a walker included?

Omg this thread really showcases what is a) worst about this game, and b) worst about rules lawyers.

I think we can fairly safely conclude, however:
a) GW fails at writing rules forever.
b) There were some glaring oversights made in the writing of the Valkyrie rules such that...
c) The Valkyrie doesn't fit in to current 5th edition rules in a logical manner


Can anyone here seriously, with a straight face, tell me that they honestly believe GW designed a transport with the specific intent that it could not unload passengers in 90% of situations?

Trasvi wrote:
Can anyone here seriously, with a straight face, tell me that they honestly believe GW designed a transport with the specific intent that it could not unload passengers in 90% of situations?

They designed the grav chute insersion to enable disembarking.
A vehicle designed to drop troops and not to embark troops does not appear shocking to me; see the drop pod.

Anyway, I would not complain if an opponent uses valk on a shorter base in order to enable embarking/disembarking, as it will be more balanced (melta range, LOS // objectives, embarking).
I know this is not a perfect solution, since it should be used on its original base, but I feel like its the most viable solution.

"They designed the grav chute insersion to enable disembarking."

no, they developed it as another form of disembarking if it has moved flat out. not as it's only form of disembarking.

alarmingrick wrote:"They designed the grav chute insersion to enable disembarking."

no, they developed it as another form of disembarking if it has moved flat out. not as it's only form of disembarking.

While I believe it is RAI that they are intended to allow "normal" disembarking, the RAW is pretty clear that you can't unless you're disembarking into an elevated position.

Grav Chute Insertion clearly tells you how to perform the operation.

Since there are no rules for how to disembark from a valkyrie "normally" you pretty much just have to make up rules if you want to claim that you can do it.

Make up rules, no.

*Run it on a normal skimmer base.

*Count it as running on a normal skimmer base for all height purposes.

If your opponent is disagreeable (as I'm not the Valk player I would be said opponent) point and laugh at anyone saying they can't deploy until they agree with one of the above.

Frazzled wrote:Make up rules, no.

*Run it on a normal skimmer base.

*Count it as running on a normal skimmer base for all height purposes.

If your opponent is disagreeable (as I'm not the Valk player I would be said opponent) point and laugh at anyone saying they can't deploy until they agree with one of the above.

If you do that you're making up a rule that lets you use a different base than the one the model comes with.

Seriously, I'm all for letting my opponent disembark. I just realize that it doesn't actually follow any rules that are written in the book, and I also don't think that guard opponents should be able to break as many rules as they want just because they have a nice new model: when you need to break the rules to make something work, clarify with your opponent first, and if your opponent is not ok with it go with the pre-established rules. That's good sportsmanship.

No its agreeing to the height of a model, at worst "proxying". Its not making up a rule.

Frazzled wrote:No its agreeing to the height of a model, at worst "proxying". Its not making up a rule.

Page 3 of the rulebook?

1. What does it say?

2. OT but is your avatar a chicken with a guitar? cool.

Page three of the rulebook says that models need to be attached (it says "glued" actually) to the base that they come with. It also mentions scenic bases, and that if you want to use a non-standard base you should clear it with your opponent first.

Of course, if your opponent's ok with it, you can make up whatever rules you want to use regarding anything. This has been a long-standing gaming convention. At the same time, though, if your opponent wants to play by the "rules as written" then it's your responsibility to either comply, or not play the game.

My avatar is Beaker (from the muppets) with a guitar, and it says "boys don't cry." It's hilarious

willydstyle wrote:Page three of the rulebook says that models need to be attached (it says "glued" actually) to the base that they come with. It also mentions scenic bases, and that if you want to use a non-standard base you should clear it with your opponent first.

*** I'd argue thats being met. Its coming with the same base, just sawed down a bit. The second part also applies - using a nonstandard base. So we're good here.
If you disagree we'll just have to agree to disagree (say that five times in a row).

My avatar is Beaker (from the muppets) with a guitar, and it says "boys don't cry." It's hilarious

It is indeed.

Hands up, haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been said.

Everyone I know with them, or playing against them plays in the spirit of the game. It lands/hovers low for troops to embark etc, move it where you want in the movement phase. It's not actually a skimmer base as such as far as we're concerened. The rule book says somewhere that things will crop up in games not covered, go with the spirit and most importantly have fun! If I play against someone who's that argumentative about it carrying troops I'll go with what they say to finsih the game and not play them again. I play for fun - anything else is a waste of my time. If I'm not going to enjoy a game I might as well go stick pins in my eyes just because I can!

Did you at least read the first post? I pretty much covered all the salient rules that people have been unsuccessfully trying to debate for the following 11 pages.

willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

Yeah I did, just think if people are going to be that akward about a game when you've paid £35 on a 'topy' for it they need to grow up and play nicely It's an enjoyable hobby, competative gaming fair enough stick to the RAW but other than that do what's fun!

I'd proffer regardless of the differeing Gwar/Willy interpretation, a shorter base meets the definition of base you came with, as its the same base. If we're going true RAW then height is not part of the base discussion.

Again reasonable people could disagree, but THEY'RE WRONG WRONG REALLY REALLY WRONG!

Gwar! wrote:willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

I'd be inclined to agree with you, except for the fact that if your opponent doesn't want to let you use an alternate base... well what happens then? Most people (with some infamous exceptions) don't magnetize their bases.

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what English (The Language Spoken in England and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...

Funny, my copy of the rulebook tells us to measure in inches. Must a misprint, seeing as England uses the metric system.

willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

5th edition rulebook, page 3:

"Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic
base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before
they can be used in the game."

The Valkyrie does indeed come with a plastic base and must therefore be glued to it. While I doubt anyone will ever require you to actually glue the model to the base, you've still got to use it.

Danny Internets wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what English (The Language Spoken in England and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...

Funny, my copy of the rulebook tells us to measure in inches. Must a misprint, seeing as England uses the metric system.

England uses a schizophrenic mix of Metric and Imperial.

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

I'd be inclined to agree with you, except for the fact that if your opponent doesn't want to let you use an alternate base... well what happens then? Most people (with some infamous exceptions) don't magnetize their bases.

Then the game breaks or you revert to RaW Rool #1: You may break RaW at any time so long as both parties agree to it

Danny Internets wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what English (The Language Spoken in England and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...

Funny, my copy of the rulebook tells us to measure in inches. Must a misprint, seeing as England uses the metric system.

Yes, that's why our Speed Limits are in Mile per Hour, we Still buy things in Pounds and Ounces and we Order a Pint at the Pub. No surprise at your flag tbh. (protip: Check my Flag, I think I know it just a Little better than you). Edit: as willydstyle got there before me, yes we use both.

Danny Internets wrote:

willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

5th edition rulebook, page 3:

"Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic
base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before
they can be used in the game."

The Valkyrie does indeed come with a plastic base and must therefore be glued to it. While I doubt anyone will ever require you to actually glue the model to the base, you've still got to use it.

1) If you're gonna copypaste from Illegal Downloads at least remove the linebreaks.
2) You forgot to add the second part (typed in, not copypasted):
Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

If your opponent does mind this, don't play them
If you're in a Tournament, get it cleared by the TO pre tournament, then your opponet HAS to accept it or auto forfeit.

I brought up the question asking if there is a difference between flight stand and base before, and was told that there is a difference (ie the stand is not part of the base). If this is true then modifying or altogether replacing the flight stand has absolutely nothing to do with the big black pancake looking base that it will still be glued to (ie the actual base it came with), thus I am not altering the base and my opponent does not have reasonable grounds to protest the height of the stand.

I'm bringing it up again because it garnered a very small amount of responses from the people who are regularly posting in this thread before, and it now seems very relevent to the direction the discussion has gone in.

Yes, that's why our Speed Limits are in Mile per Hour, we Still buy things in Pounds and Ounces and we Order a Pint at the Pub. No surprise at your flag tbh. (protip: Check my Flag, I think I know it just a Little better than you). Edit: as willydstyle got there before me, yes we use both.

Regardless, the British rulebook uses the metric system while the language of the American rulebook is specifically changed, so using an American English dictionary to discern the meaning of said rules isn't exactly a far stretch. I know you're just being argumentative because that's what you do, but let's get real.

Gwar! wrote:1) If you're gonna copypaste from Illegal Downloads at least remove the linebreaks.

I own a hard copy of the rulebook. Get over it.

2) You forgot to add the second part (typed in, not copypasted):
Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

If your opponent does mind this, don't play them
If you're in a Tournament, get it cleared by the TO pre tournament, then your opponet HAS to accept it or auto forfeit.

I didn't include the second part because it is irrelevant. Asking your opponent (or a TO) if it's OK to break a rule is the same as agreeing to play a house rule. But we're not talking about house rules here, we're talking about actual rules. The rules say you must use the base it is supplied with (unless you agree on a house rule with your opponent--ie, "it's ok to mount a Valkyrie on a Land Speeder flight stand").

Danny Internets wrote:I didn't include the second part because it is irrelevant. Asking your opponent (or a TO) if it's OK to break a rule is the same as agreeing to play a house rule. But we're not talking about house rules here, we're talking about actual rules. The rules say you must use the base it is supplied with (unless you agree on a house rule with your opponent--ie, "it's ok to mount a Valkyrie on a Land Speeder flight stand").

Wait, what? how is that breaking the rule. The ACTUAL rule is to ask your opponent. How does one break the rule by following the rule? They don't that's how. You Can mount your models on whatever freaking bases you want. You just have to ask your opponent if he minds. If he does, don't play them. That is well within the rules. If he doesn't mind, play them with the new base. That is ALSO within the rules.

Please, explain how I am "Agreeing to a house rule" when the rule is in the freaking Rulebook?

I'll afford you some credit and assume you're being intentionally obtuse.

Rule A says you do one thing. Rule B says you can break Rule A if your opponent says it's OK. Regardless, you are still breaking rule A.

It's exactly the same as GW's "The Most Important Rule":

"The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
– the choice is entirely yours."

The entire rulebook is prefaced with a section that says you can break ANY rule as long as both players agree. Agreeing to break a rule (and thereby use a different rule) is called a house rule, yes?

Got it now?

The second part of the base rule is just a reiteration of The Most Important Rule. You and your opponent can also agree bolters are S10 AP1 if you want, as per the rules. Whoop-dee-doo.

Let's get back to the actual rules, instead of discussing the legality of ignoring them.

I'm just interjecting something here so I appologize for breaking up your debate and not sure if this has been addressed but I did not have time to go through all 10+ pages of posts. In the rulebook under skimmers under moving skimmers, it states that a "skimmer must be set down on the table and left in place at the end of its move, it cannot be left hovering in midair."

And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?

I Think IGVamp just ended it. If it MUST be set down at the end, the idea that it cannot capture because its too high in the air has now been squashed.

smart_alex wrote:I Think IGVamp just ended it. If it MUST be set down at the end, the idea that it cannot capture because its too high in the air has now been squashed.

Apart from the bit in the skimmer rules that say when measuring any and all distances to ignore the base and measure to the hull.

But hey, it's been ended, no point in continuing the discussion right?

IGVamp wrote:I'm just interjecting something here so I appologize for breaking up your debate and not sure if this has been addressed but I did not have time to go through all 10+ pages of posts. In the rulebook under skimmers under moving skimmers, it states that a "skimmer must be set down on the table and left in place at the end of its move, it cannot be left hovering in midair."

And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?

The "must be set down on the table" does not mean that you remove it from its base. The rules are clear that you only remove a skimmer from its base when it is wrecked or immobilized. What being "set down on the table" means is that you can't just keep it hovering in the air to do "pop up" attacks.

NO! Bad Willydstyle! The Discussion was ended! How dare you post more!

But seriously, Willydstyle has it correct. Now add me to your sig again

Gwar! wrote:NO! Bad Willydstyle! The Discussion was ended! How dare you post more!

But seriously, Willydstyle has it correct. Now add me to your sig again

I only need it once, then I have your whole army of "Gwar! is right" backing me

One would think you just drop them down vertically from the hatches keep withing 2" horizontally like any other transport.

Neexo wrote:One would think you just drop them down vertically from the hatches keep withing 2" horizontally like any other transport.

Indeed. Inf act if you look at EVERY SINGLE DIAGRAM for disembarking you will see it works on a Horizontal plane, but alas some people are pretty SUPERSRS about a Children's Card game... I mean Wargame.

IGVamp wrote:I'm just interjecting something here so I appologize for breaking up your debate and not sure if this has been addressed but I did not have time to go through all 10+ pages of posts. In the rulebook under skimmers under moving skimmers, it states that a "skimmer must be set down on the table and left in place at the end of its move, it cannot be left hovering in midair."

And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?

The book tells you that skimmers can swoop and hover a few meters off the ground, and that when they move they can move over other models. You must set the model on its stand back down on the table though at the end of your move, you can't stay at altitude.

In practice think of it as settling to minimum hover at the end of its move, which is just above ground level. When it moves, it can gain altitude and swoop over other models and terrain. If you settle down to ground level in difficult terrain, you are low enough for the terrain to possibly immobilize you.

Bear in mind the terrain check is an abstract test, not based on the physical properties of the terrain you stopped on. You would have to take the test from landing on a shallow crater difficult terrain the same as if you landed on a woods difficult terrain. This is why this rule applies equally to the Valkyrie on its higher base than other skimmers; the height of the base doesn't matter for this rule.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

Has it been cleared yet that the flight stand is part of the adaption of this model from a different rules set, is just there to look cool and it doesn't interact with current rules in any logical way?

Trasvi wrote:Has it been cleared yet that the flight stand is part of the adaption of this model from a different rules set, is just there to look cool and it doesn't interact with current rules in any logical way?

This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out.

P.s: Why do you imply that it is just their to look cool? Do you have some sort of preconceived answer to your question? Hardly neutral Language there....

Also: Seeing as it is up on its high base, does it still block line of sight through the base?
I was under the impression that my fire warriors aren't allowed to shoot under/through their devilfish. By the same token (seeing as a Valk is just a skimmer it is just on a flying base) does it block LOS?
(apologies if something covering that is actually in the valkyrie rules, i dont have the IG codex)

This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out.

Seeing as you seem to be aware of the great failings of GW's rule system, is there a particular reason for the adamant defense of something that clearly doesn't make sense? Or do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

(I'm not saying that the Valk can't be played perfectly to fit the rules, i'm just saying that playing it to fit the rules has some great logical flaws)

Trasvi wrote:Also: Seeing as it is up on its high base, does it still block line of sight through the base?
I was under the impression that my fire warriors aren't allowed to shoot under/through their devilfish. By the same token (seeing as a Valk is just a skimmer it is just on a flying base) does it block LOS?
(apologies if something covering that is actually in the valkyrie rules, i dont have the IG codex)

You have the wrong impression. Firewarriors can fire under the fish so long as they can actually trace LOS under it. The same with the valk. And yeah, it blocks line of sight, but only the actual model.

Trasvi wrote:

This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out.

Seeing as you seem to be aware of the great failings of GW's rule system, is there a particular reason for the adamant defense of something that clearly doesn't make sense? Or do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

(I'm not saying that the Valk can't be played perfectly to fit the rules, i'm just saying that playing it to fit the rules has some great logical flaws)

A lot of things in the rules don't "make sense". It doesn't matter if the do or don't. Play by the rules or don't play at all.

Neexo wrote:One would think you just drop them down vertically from the hatches keep withing 2" horizontally like any other transport.

Actually, every other transport measures 2" from the access point. It's just that with every other transport the vertical distance is irrelevant because the access point is along the ground.

As pointed out earlier, the developers are quite aware of the existence of the third dimension in the rules of Warhammer 40k (refer to the section on Ruins). Instead of restricting the measurement to horizontal distance, they indicate that you simply measure from point A to point B. Using both the explicit meaning of the language and the context of the rules, it is impossible to reasonably conclude that the vertical distance is to be ignored.

Its almost like no one at GW ever tried to use it following the rules directly. Maybe they didn't even use the stand in playtest.

*facepalm*

Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?

Nyarlathotep wrote:*facepalm*

Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?

You should simply expect to play by the rules. If you have personal objections to playing by the rules then perhaps tournaments aren't for you. Consult your TO if you have specific questions.

Nyarlathotep wrote:*facepalm*

Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?

You should probably at the very least expect some sort of discussion as to how to make them work within the 5th edition rules, unless the tournament has an entry in their FAQ covering it.

@Nyarlathotep:

Explaining how the rules work is not "rule lawyering." Unfortunately how the rules interact with the Valkyrie is very clear, and also seems to be very contrary to how the designer intended it to be.

This discussion is intended to be about how to play the model, while breaking the least number of rules and still having it be a fun and usable vehicle.

Some people think that you can follow all of the rules and the valkyrie does just fine. Other people disagree to one degree or another.

Coming into a discussion and throwing around insults does not do anything to further the discussion.

The last time I played against a Valk, we decided to allow deployment directly under the Valk. (but when in the valk, counting at that height.) I won't pretend this is the RAW way to play, but it seemed work while ignoring the least rules, and fluff wise could be excused as the troops using descent ropes. Clearly I'd recommend bringing this up with your opponent, (or the TO) before the games begin, so there's less argument overall.

I'm thinking of putting my devilfishes on these stands.

Do your Devilfishes come supplied with that stand?

Steelmage99 wrote:Do your Devilfishes come supplied with that stand?

The flying stand is not part of the Base

The stem that forms the actual 'flight' part of the 'flight base' would certainly seem to qualify as a part of the base to me...

Gwar! wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Do your Devilfishes come supplied with that stand?

The flying stand is not part of the Base

Very true.

I find it hugely ironic that Option 1 and Option 3 are the exact same thing

Gwar! wrote:I find it hugely ironic that Option 1 and Option 3 are the exact same thing

Shhhhh... you don't want to disturb them...

This whole thread is LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.

Demogerg wrote:This whole thread is LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.

Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

I still don't understand how playing by the rules = 0 In sportsmanship

Demogerg wrote:This whole thread is LOL.

I know how I am going to play it at tourneys... As Written.

At tournaments, I'll play as the Tourney Organiser interprets.
Hopefully they will publish a FAQ before the event, so there are no surprises half-way through a game.

1. Playing by your interpretation of the rules GWAR.
2. I'd bet good money your average IG player is not going to have a clue what the argument is, because they have not been proven to 15 page plus discussions on it. You pop this to such a player then A. the TO wil likely rule its a skimmer and play in similar manner to every other skim height etc. B. You will now be marked as TFG, trying to take advantage of a loop hole to hammer your opponent.

Again, I don't have any Valks. I don't currently play guard. While I disagree with the reasoning on this issue I can see the argument and also and easy way to address prior to the game.

But having said all that, I can see how this would go down with extreme clarity. You might as well brand stick a flashing TFG guy on your forehead unless you are amenable to agreement before the game starts.


Edit, as a TO I'd say play it an agreed upon height. the IG player wanted to play it at 2in I'd agree to that. If you objected you would be shunned as TFG.

Frazzled wrote:
Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.

I can say that in the only tournament i have played so far, a small local tourney, the TO looked at me like I was crazy as did all of my opponents that I felt this even needed to be discussed.

Thier response.

Of course you can deploy, just use the base if there is any question. And they all had said that anyone who would try to argue for playing it that you could not would have been looked at as TFG in the extreme.

This is really one of those things were its painfully clear how it should be played by the designers intent. I do agree that the rules can be interpreted that you can not, but that is an interpretation that can be argued against reasonably. With that and the very clear intent that they shoudl be able to be used at regular transports ( and no that does not mean only being able to deploy on raised terrain) I do not think this will come up in anything but very isolated tourneys run by TOs who has some kind of problem with IG or the Valk model.

Danny Internets wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.

See, here's where the screaming starts. I am sure if you pulled this out of your butt at a tournament the TO would be extremely aware quickly. I think the first "You're full of !" would probably alert the rest of tournament players to your maneuver.

And they can indeed give you a "0." Its not cheating. Its sportsmanship and they would be viewing you as a poor sport.

Danny Internets wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Are you going to say that beforehand or just surprise your opponent? If discussed beforehand what if your opponent Says play it as if 2in off the ground. If a surprise or no agreement are you prepared to get a 0 in sportsmanship?

Playing by the rules should never be a surprise, especially at a tournament. If someone gives a 0 in sportsmanship for insisting on playing the rules as they are written then they are abusing the system and should probably be brought to the attention of the TO, just like any other cheater.

This makes me laugh. This isn't exactly a core rule that's being exploited for unfair play by an IG player. Odds are, he simply never though about it, and would quite fairly be totally surprised if half way through a game was told he can't deploy from his transport. Like it or not, it is unsportsmanlike to sandbag that sort of rules argument. Sportsmanship isn't the following of rules (that much is assumed), but rather gentelmanly and honourable play that shows respect for the opponent. Given that it seems that there is a small but vocal minority here that seems to be 100% certain that the Valks are played one way, while most people are very much unsure, I would expect this to be a matter of confusion.

Now, if a player knocks another down after there is a pre-game discussion in which the TO rules on the issue against the IG player, that's a big more petty, as at least the IG player can utilize his army in another way. IN a few months, when tournies figure out house rules for the thing, there will be less of a surprise factor.

If nothing else, part of sportsmanship is the elusive "would you want to play against this person again." If a player tried to invalidate my valks in a tourny, then no, I would not want to play them again, because the RAI is clear, and if and when a FAQ comes out it will allow deployment/disembarking.

Exactly.
EDIT: Now if Gwar started prior to the game and said "little Jimmy, please quit making pew pew noises and concentrate for a minute. There's an LOS height issue with Valks (explains potential issue). how do you want to handle it?"

If I were little Jimmy not only would we come to a quick agreement but I'd score you HIGHER on sportsmanship as a result for having the foresight to deal with issues and not try to spring them on me. Then I would go back to making pew pew noises.

Polonius wrote:

This makes me laugh. This isn't exactly a core rule that's being exploited for unfair play by an IG player. Odds are, he simply never though about it, and would quite fairly be totally surprised if half way through a game was told he can't deploy from his transport. Like it or not, it is unsportsmanlike to sandbag that sort of rules argument. Sportsmanship isn't the following of rules (that much is assumed), but rather gentelmanly and honourable play that shows respect for the opponent. Given that it seems that there is a small but vocal minority here that seems to be 100% certain that the Valks are played one way, while most people are very much unsure, I would expect this to be a matter of confusion.

Now, if a player knocks another down after there is a pre-game discussion in which the TO rules on the issue against the IG player, that's a big more petty, as at least the IG player can utilize his army in another way. IN a few months, when tournies figure out house rules for the thing, there will be less of a surprise factor.

If nothing else, part of sportsmanship is the elusive "would you want to play against this person again." If a player tried to invalidate my valks in a tourny, then no, I would not want to play them again, because the RAI is clear, and if and when a FAQ comes out it will allow deployment/disembarking.

Measuring from base of dismbarking model to access point is indeed a core rule, as is measuring to and from the hull of a vehicle.

He may have never thought about it. He probably hasn't thought about a lot of things, but that's hardly the failing of the person insisting on enforcement of those rules.

Sure, it sucks, but knowing the rules is part of the game. I personally wouldn't surprise someone with the information (I would let them know about the proper way to play it when they inform me that a unit is inside), but I don't fault people for telling me about rules which I am not familiar with during a game.

And they can indeed give you a "0." Its not cheating. Its sportsmanship and they would be viewing you as a poor sport.

Sure, and I can give you a "0" when you insist your bolters are S4. Just because you CAN do it, doesn't mean you aren't abusing the system.

1. As you're in the minority, its predicate on you to prove the argument. As there is strong disagreement on the argument, you yourself could be the "cheater" as you like to state.

2. That will be cold counsel when the rest of your opponents now think of you as TFG. Again, discuss beforehand = smooth move. Springing this on an opponent mid game screams TFG.

Frazzled wrote:1. As you're in the minority, its predicate on you to prove the argument. As there is strong disagreement on the argument, you yourself could be the "cheater" as you like to state.

2. That will be cold counsel when the rest of your opponents now think of you as TFG. Again, discuss beforehand = smooth move. Springing this on an opponent mid game screams TFG.

Of what am I in the minority? I share the position originally posited by others in this thread, and which has withstood dozens of half-baked arguments. I don't even see any remaining arguments to the contrary. Do you have one that's founded in the rules and not personal opinion?

What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Gwar! wrote:What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with your interpretation to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with your interpretation to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation.

Speaking of being quick to jump to conclusions, if you re-read my post you'll note that the only people I called cheaters are those who abuse the sportsmanship system.

And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Polonius wrote:And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Again, said more succinctly, and politely than I could do.
The Danny Internets interpretation may even be more the more correct RAW interpretation. But I "my way or the highway" approach to an interesting interpretation that would single out IG players, especially when the direct codex infers the opposite, is a no bueno approach to tournament uber domination.

Polonius wrote:And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Interesting that you equate strict rules adherence with being a jerk. Perhaps locally it's just much more tolerated because we understand that this is a game of rules and that playing by those rules is the only way to guarantee fairness through consistent application.

Either way, no offense taken. I've won enough "Best Sportsman" and "Favorite Opponent" awards at local tournaments to discount contrary personal opinions from people I don't even know. If that's the social position being myself puts me in, then, so be it.

Danny Internets wrote:

Polonius wrote:And that's your interpretation of the sportsmanship rules. As I think I demonstrated quite well, not discussing the rules before hand is poor sports. Discussing it before hand is fine, but odds are it will require a TO ruling.

If a player is a jerk, then many players don't want to play them again. I know, I know, you just want to play by the rules. But one of the rules of life is that people that are jerks don't see themselves as jerks, just "principled." Let me give you a heads up: insisting on this will lead to a high percentage of people thinking you're a jerk. I dont' mean offense, but given the posting patterns of yourself and Gwar, I think it's safe to say that you're comfortable with that social position.

Interesting that you equate strict rules adherence with being a jerk. Perhaps locally it's just much more tolerated because we understand that this is a game of rules and that playing by those rules is the only way to guarantee fairness through consistent application.

Either way, no offense taken. I've won enough "Best Sportsman" and "Favorite Opponent" awards at local tournaments to discount contrary personal opinions from people I don't even know. If that's the social position being myself puts me in, then, so be it.

I'm not saying you're a jerk, I"m saying you can't be shocked that somebody would find your behavior to be jerk like, and therefor unsportsmanlike. Yes, when playing at your local odds are your view point holds a lot more sway. If you played at a another store, and they game differently, they might find your position to be unsporting.

Also, not to denigrate your achievements, but if your local RTTs are like mine, "Best Sports" means you had the highest battle points of the people that scored max sports, often by playing some combination of friends and people that just max everybody out. It's a nice attaboy, but at a lot of shops it's a highly unofficial third place trophy.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What he is saying is, it does not matter if you are right, it matters what others think of you.

The US legal system proves that. You can be as right as rain but if the opponent has more money (the backing of all the other players) you will lose, no two ways about it.

Indeed.

Frankly you've argued with about four people. You've not won anything. I do find it interesting that you're so quick to call people who disagree with your interpretation to be cheaters. As with all non-mathmatical arguments, there is no absolute right way. Its all interpretation.

Actually, it is a mathematical argument because it basically hinges on numerical measurements.

If: > 2" from access point, then: cannot disembark

If: >3" from hull, then: cannot capture/contest

Then the only argument becomes that Warhammer is a 2d game, not 3d, but several examples in the book (on page 83) and the fact that it's played with 3D LoS, 3D terrain, and 3D models does not support that hypothesis. Yes, the diagram for disembarking does appear in 2D... but really, how else could they show it, and the rule still simply says "within 2" of an access point." Not, "2 inches of an access point as perceived in a 2d plane from the top of the vehicle."

Q.E.D.

I think what Frazz is trying to say is that all the numbers and Q.E.D in the world will not help you if you are painted out to be TFG and thus do not have the support of the "room"

I realize that, I was just countering his "non-mathematical argument" idea.

Of course, many people do not understand math, or choose not to (I don't mean you Frazzled) so you can explain things to them and they just don't get it.

Well, there's a difference between being right and being a tool about being right. Yes, everybody who pointed out that terminators didn't have terminator armor was right, but anybody that enforced that was a tool. Likewise, there is both enough genuine ability to read 40k as 2d with 3d add ons to to:
1) make the claim that RAW is 100% clear difficult, and
2) make pushing that claim forward in game a move of shaky sportsmanship.

I think that RAW is pretty clear, and it's becoming more and more apparent that 40k is 3d, but there are huge areas where it's 2d, and simply ignoring that in favor of reaching a conclusion is a bit premature, particularly given both the RAI and the custom of play.

Edit on Math: And that's the central core: you are using the axiom that all measurments are in 3d. That's fine, but it's still an axiom, not a rule.

well, the codex says that the troops can bail out via repelling lines, so I think that troops near a building (at the right hight) can get out near the hatches or by the base, as several insertion options are usually available for helicopters and such.

Polonius wrote:Well, there's a difference between being right and being a tool about being right. Yes, everybody who pointed out that terminators didn't have terminator armor was right, but anybody that enforced that was a tool. Likewise, there is both enough genuine ability to read 40k as 2d with 3d add ons to to:
1) make the claim that RAW is 100% clear difficult, and
2) make pushing that claim forward in game a move of shaky sportsmanship.

I think that RAW is pretty clear, and it's becoming more and more apparent that 40k is 3d, but there are huge areas where it's 2d, and simply ignoring that in favor of reaching a conclusion is a bit premature, particularly given both the RAI and the custom of play.

Edit on Math: And that's the central core: you are using the axiom that all measurments are in 3d. That's fine, but it's still an axiom, not a rule.

I wouldn't say that there are "huge areas" where the game is played as 2D. The only time that I can think of that you are specifically told to only take two dimensions into account is when resolving the number of hits caused by blast and template weapons. Given the amount of the game that must be played in three dimensions, I think that you would need an exception in the rules to measure something in two.

Most measurements, in order to satisfy the rules for measuring, must be made in three dimensions. Most of the time, measuring from the base of one model to the base of another model will be made on a plane, but if there are any differences in the elevation between two models (assume one is on a hill) if you are not measuring at a diagonal angle, you are not measuring from the base of one model to the base of the other model, but you are measuring from "the base of one model to the area above the base of the other model" which is not what the rules tell us to do.

Ok, let me amend: there are huge areas in which the rules are silent enough on the issue to make it difficult to tell if the rules are truly 3d or only 3d where they say so.

The thing is, given that the game uses 3d models and terrain, why would you assume that it's not 3D unless the rules specifically say as much?

Apparently because I'm stupid and weak willed. I, and a lot of other gamers, simply have always played that way. There is no freedom of movement in the Z-axis, so that's a big factor. You can move as you wish front and back, side to side, but you can't leave your skimmers 24" in the air, so I think that leads people to 2D thinking.

It's like the original Doom: yeah, you moved up and down, but not freely.

Polonius wrote:There is no freedom of movement in the Z-axis, so that's a big factor. You can move as you wish front and back, side to side, but you can't leave your skimmers 24" in the air, so I think that leads people to 2D thinking.

I'm not following... You can move freely on the Z axis, so long as there's something to stand on. That's a big part of where the 3D terrain comes in.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not seeing how a Space Marine's inability to stand on empty air should affect measuring distances between two objects.

insaniak wrote:

Polonius wrote:There is no freedom of movement in the Z-axis, so that's a big factor. You can move as you wish front and back, side to side, but you can't leave your skimmers 24" in the air, so I think that leads people to 2D thinking.

I'm not following... You can move freely on the Z axis, so long as there's something to stand on. That's a big part of where the 3D terrain comes in.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not seeing how a Space Marine's inability to stand on empty air should affect measuring distances between two objects.

Because, it means that 40k is only 3d when it absolutely has to be. Ruins, aiming at things at increased heights, LOS, that sort of thing. These are things that force special rules to deal with a 3d world.

Look, I'm not arguing a point here. I've read the rules cover to cover, and there is simply no way I buy the notion that 40k is 100% 3d. I'm clearly outnumbered, and I'll play however people play, but the RAW you propose requires models having the ability to move freely in 3d, which they don't have.

So, you can argue all you want, but when you apply a logical system and get a preposterous result, sometimes you check your axioms.

I agree with the people saying 40k isn't fully adapted to 3d measurements.

Sure, there are 3d elements (terrain can have elevated levels of height, some models are taller than others) but there is no real adaption for some other 3 dimensional things.

For example.... Jet packs. Can move 6 inches of jet flight. However, if I use their jetpacks to jump 6 inches over another squad, the distance travelled along my jump arc is obviously going to be more than 6 inches. Yet people are ok with me jumping over a squad that is 1 inch tall (moving 6 inches horizontally) yet if I jump over a 10 inch wall (moving 6 inches horizontally) people complain.
Unless you all bend your tape measures into a parabola every time you move your jump infantry...?

I think the real issue is that the rules don't have any clear explanation or ruling of models which are significantly above ground level. The ruins section obviously doesn't work in a totally 3d way (Ie, you put the blast on a 2d plane) but is the only real indication we have. Nothing else in the core rules has any clear resolution for a model who's hull is 5 inches off the ground, and it is very strange to me that people are trying to apply obviously faulty rules to the situation.

And as for amicable agreement before a game starts... what if BOTH people try to make a quick resolution before the game, from opposite viewpoints?

Polonius wrote:Ruins, aiming at things at increased heights, LOS, that sort of thing.

So, like, pretty much all the time, then...?

The very fact that the game uses 3D models and terrain, and uses the profiles of those 3D models and terrain for determining movement and LOS, should be more than enough to show that the game is inherently 3D.

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to argue the point either. I'm trying to understand what your point is, because it simply doesn't make any sense so far.

but the RAW you propose requires models having the ability to move freely in 3d, which they don't have.

Sorry, but it does nothing of the sort.

I can't move vertically upwards without having something to climb. Does that make me inherently 2-dimensional?

Whether or not a model can move in empty air has no effect whatsoever on whether or not their height has any impact on the game. It would do if we were talking about, say, a space battle game... but we're talking about a land-based wargame. Infantry can't move freely in the Z axis without support because of gravity, not because the Z axis doesn't exist.

There are about four references to the z-axis in the rulebook. All are very specific, very detailed, and explain things clearly. This, to me, implies that these are exceptions to an over all rule, not simply reminders of how the rule always works.

So, saying that models can't disembark a valkyrie because they can't reach the table top in the 2" of allocated disembarkation does not compute, because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.

Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down.

The problem, for me, with a z-axis that allows freer movment is that where models can rest becomes a bit more interesting. A lot of stores have thick forests that can support a model. Can jump troopers actually land on top of a canopy of trees? If not, why not? As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?

For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation. The flight stand is to make them easier to see.

We know that immobilized skimmers can get off their bases, and thus can "land."

So, my point is, the game makes just as much sense assuming that there is no Z-axis, and all references to it are exceptions to a general rule. It matches more closely the way most people play things that can move through the air, it makes more sense for rules like skimmers disembarking and the like, and it eliminates all kinds of nasty grey areas regarding skimmer bases.

I actually just thought of something interesting that also, whilst it could be played as RAW is very... off.

A Valkyrie next to a multi story building.
Assuming the building is such that models can disembark from the Valk to the top floor of the building.
There is a squad on the top floor of the building, and also one on the bottom floor.
Someone fires a blast weapon at the top floor unit. It scatters onto the Valkyrie. However, technically the Valk is immune to this, as it exists on the ground.
And conversely a shot fired at the valkyrie which scatters will hit the bottom floor unit.
Doesn't that seem a little strange to you?

Combine this with the disembarking onto the top floor. Even though the doors of your Rhino may be 2 inches tall, you're not allowed (or at least it would be the most beardy thing in the world to try) to disembark from a Rhino into the 2nd level of some ruins. The Valk is just another transport vehicle, higher up. Why does it get different treatment?

Polonius wrote:because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.

Why not?

Do your models not move up and down hills? If you have a model on the top of a short sheer face (short enough to be not impassable, as models could conceivably clamber down it) should the model not be able to move down that face?

Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down.

Pardon?

Sorry, you might need to explain that bit a little more thoroughly, because you've lost me completely.

The model on the hill is higher up because it's higher up, surely?

The problem, for me, with a z-axis that allows freer movment is that where models can rest becomes a bit more interesting. A lot of stores have thick forests that can support a model. Can jump troopers actually land on top of a canopy of trees? If not, why not?

I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as both players had agreed beforehand that the trees were strong enough to support troops, and the models can physically stand there.

Around here, we've always played that models can be placed wherever they can physically be placed, unless something is specifically classed as impassable.

As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?

They certainly should. Skimmers can move over terrain. Nothing in the rules suggests that they can ignore it for measurement purposes. It's no different to infantry movement... infantry measure the actual distance moved over a hill, skimmers measure the actual distance moved over a forest. All that changes is that the skimmer can move over things that infantry can't.

For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation.

Not everybody plays that way, sorry.

I've always dealt with skimmers just the same as any other model... by assuming that the physical position of the model is the model's actual location.

and it eliminates all kinds of nasty grey areas regarding skimmer bases.

Which grey areas are those?

Look, either you're being willfully obtuse, or I'm being incoherent. Either way, you're clearly not going to understand me. I mean no offense, I just can't think of any way to better articulate my thoughts.

Yes, a model may be higher than another due to a hill, but that's due to it's location on the XY grid, not because it moved up or down.

Pardon?
Sorry, you might need to explain that bit a little more thoroughly, because you've lost me completely.
The model on the hill is higher up because it's higher up, surely?

For nearly all aspects of the game, a model's z coordinates are a function of their x and y coordinates. In other words, X and Y are freely variable in most circumstances, but for any given X+Y there is generally only one Z, except for the case of ruins which we have very special rules to deal with. In ruins, Z is a nominated value that does not vary with X+Y as can be seen with the rules of placing blast markers. And rules for ruins are about the only real references that we have for models who's base/hull can be significantly above ground level.

because to me a model cannot move straight down from one point on the Z-axis to another, absent a special rule.

Why not?
Do your models not move up and down hills? If you have a model on the top of a short sheer face (short enough to be not impassable, as models could conceivably clamber down it) should the model not be able to move down that face?

In which case we use a difficult terrain test for moving upwards. A special rule.

As I stated earlier in the thread, are all skimmers now required to measure "rainbow" distance for all moves over terrain or enemy models?

They certainly should. Skimmers can move over terrain. Nothing in the rules suggests that they can ignore it for measurement purposes. It's no different to infantry movement... infantry measure the actual distance moved over a hill, skimmers measure the actual distance moved over a forest. All that changes is that the skimmer can move over things that infantry can't.

It seems that in 40k most of the time we work on a 6 inch displacement range, rather than 6 inch distance. It is a very different situation from moving straight up a hill - or rather, it is exactly the same: you nominate a finish point 6 inches away from your start point and move there. Skimmers do the same.
I don't think you'll find anyone who will ever say that skimmers/jump infantry need to move in arcs, so this is just being deliberately obtuse.

For me, it seems that the only real problem with the 2.5 dimensional game is the location of skimmers, which is easy enough to deal with by the way everybody always plays them: simply assume they land for embarkation and disembarkation.

Not everybody plays that way, sorry.
I've always dealt with skimmers just the same as any other model... by assuming that the physical position of the model is the model's actual location.

My Tau skimmers are 1 inch in the air. I think. Does that mean that instead of having a 2 inch radius around my access points, I actually have 1.73 inches to deploy my troops in?

Can a Valkryie land?

My Tau skimmers are 1 inch in the air. I think. Does that mean that instead of having a 2 inch radius around my access points, I actually have 1.73 inches to deploy my troops in?

No, it means you have 2" from the hatch, measured in three dimensions. That may mean that you have to be 1.73 inches from the hatch horizontally, but that's pretty much the breaks.

You see blast weapons as an example of how 40k is 2D. I see blast weapons as a specific exemption to a generally 3D ruleset.

@Emperors Faithful: Valkyries landing has been covered several times in this thread. A skimmer may only be removed from its base if it is immobilized or wrecked.

Sorry, didn't want to read all these pages...
How about disembarking onto a building (if valkryie is level with it?

Well... by the very strictest of RAW that would be the only way to disembark "normally".

I think most players will allow (and expect) units to disembark around the base.

Hmmm, but I guess most playas should just go hell for leather and drop out of the damn thing. (Hint: Roll on Impact)

Right, sorry to butt in. Have now discussed this (surprisingly brief considering the thread sizE) with my gaming group. Very quickly we came to the following conclusion/house rule.

Skimmers that are supplied with parts to build them in a landed position (Valk, Hammerheads etc) will be able to 'land' at any point in their movement. Simply take the model off the flying base and set it down on it's landing feet. Models may also take off in the same mannor. This covers howvering just above ground etc. This also allows models with 'daft' bases like the valk to land behind a building for cover, as would be logical with those landing legs and vertical thrust jets.

Note this does not apply to all skimmers, just those that have a visual design that INCLUDES landing gear. Eldar, dark eldar, jet biokes, landspeeders etc. may not use this rule.

We know it doesn't make complete sense but solves the valk issue of disembarking in the most logical way we came up with, taking into consideration the spirit of the designer, while also being fair to other armies that also have the same logical apearance. We've not had any problems so far playing this way....

covenant84 wrote:Right, sorry to butt in. Have now discussed this (surprisingly brief considering the thread sizE) with my gaming group. Very quickly we came to the following conclusion/house rule.

Skimmers that are supplied with parts to build them in a landed position (Valk, Hammerheads etc) will be able to 'land' at any point in their movement. Simply take the model off the flying base and set it down on it's landing feet. Models may also take off in the same mannor. This covers howvering just above ground etc. This also allows models with 'daft' bases like the valk to land behind a building for cover, as would be logical with those landing legs and vertical thrust jets.

Note this does not apply to all skimmers, just those that have a visual design that INCLUDES landing gear. Eldar, dark eldar, jet biokes, landspeeders etc. may not use this rule.

We know it doesn't make complete sense but solves the valk issue of disembarking in the most logical way we came up with, taking into consideration the spirit of the designer, while also being fair to other armies that also have the same logical apearance. We've not had any problems so far playing this way....

While I think it's great you guys made some house rules, I can see problems if you ever play people from outside the same group.

We probablywill at some point, but none of us have had any problems with it so far (including playing a few games outside the group)

dumplingman wrote:
What I am most interested in seeing, is if GW actually FAQS the valk for these purposes or if they just keep it the same assuming players know what to do.

I wouldn't hold your breath. How long has the Drop Pod Model been out?

what is wrong with the drop pod that hasn't yet been FAQ'd? PM me the answers to that so we don't derail the thread. Thanks

Caffran9 wrote:what is wrong with the drop pod that hasn't yet been FAQ'd? PM me the answers to that so we don't derail the thread. Thanks

The doors.

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/243507.page#765608

Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0) Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?

Frazzled wrote:www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/243507.page#765608

Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide (1+1.5> 2.0) Alternatively, if you could get one mini aren’t you really saying only one rank of minis could ever get out? (again 1+1.5>2.0). Mathematically how do you do that if you’re following the 3d argument?

Well since your math is bad I guess your point does not stand.

You must think of the distance to the 2nd line of models as a triangle, and to figure out that distance you use pythagoras theorem

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

A = distance to base of first model (in your example is 1.5)

B = Distance to second base, which if placed directly agacent would be .5 inches (no reason to measure from the far side as i'd put the middle of the base directly under the 1.5 inch zone, i made an error in just accepting your prior 1inch here)

C= distance to new model's base

C=1.58113883

so there are no problems there. Since you can use this triange in any direction from the model with the same result, being able to deploy one model @ 1.5 inches means that you are necessarily able to deploy at least 9 models within 2"

I pulled out the trusty old ruler. You're right. You could do two ranks (maximum) assuming 1in bases.

Houston I think we have a problem with, all skimmers buahaha if we apply this rule.

2 ranks in all directions (of which there are 8 directions that equal sized and shaped based models could go) gives a total of 9 models in that example.

How true this example is to actual models and their access points I'm not sure of. But, mathematically this proves the 1.5 inch standard flying base COULD allow the 2" disembark, where a 5" base could not.

Only half the directions-you can't put minis under the skimmer IIRC. But I'll grant you are getting close to a full complement of a normal squad and may reflect a full squad in real world application.

You can fit even more if you go with a bit of a low rider tilt back on the wave serpent. Should give you the extra half inch or so you need to deploy fully.

My opinion:

Even though there models are "technically" however high they are, whether its ground level, 3 inches 5 etc. It makes no sense to me that a skimmer wouldnt be able to lower itself to drop off or pick up squad members. Obviously a tank cant get to a high objective because it cant fly, but also as obvious is that a skimmer COULD get an objective close to the ground in the thought that any flying vehicle must have the ability to go up and down.

sorry if thats been said, made it through 4 or 5 pages of posts

SonofTerra wrote:My opinion:

Even though there models are "technically" however high they are, whether its ground level, 3 inches 5 etc. It makes no sense to me that a skimmer wouldnt be able to lower itself to drop off or pick up squad members. Obviously a tank cant get to a high objective because it cant fly, but also as obvious is that a skimmer COULD get an objective close to the ground in the thought that any flying vehicle must have the ability to go up and down.

sorry if thats been said, made it through 4 or 5 pages of posts

that is how most people play, how most tournaments are going to play it, and is almost assuredly what GW will say in the FAQ, if any.

It is not what RAW says, assuming a 3d system.

Polonius wrote:You can fit even more if you go with a bit of a low rider tilt back on the wave serpent. Should give you the extra half inch or so you need to deploy fully.

Which would be accurate at least in so far as several of my skimmers are at differing angles... (everybody out!@)
I think I've been convinced you can likely get a full squad out at 1.5in height.

While true, the representational effect of the skimmer is that it is going up and down, the rulebook explicitly states they cannot land, and must end their movement [with their base] on the ground. (p.71)

edit: doh! @ sonofterra

It's funny, because I've been measuring diagonally for disembarking from my wave serpents, and I've had opponents tell me, "You should disembark farther than that" to which I reply "not if I want to play by the rules."

Can somebody who owns an assembled Valk measure the vertical distance from the bottom of any hatches to the ground, please?

As I believe the Valk can be mounted both tilting forwards and backwards, I would really appreciate both measurements.

Thanks in advance.

Trasvi wrote: In other words, X and Y are freely variable in most circumstances, but for any given X+Y there is generally only one Z,

But the fact that there is a Z, and that Z can be different depending on where the model is placed, proves that the game is inherently 3D.

Specifically, we don't need a rule covering how the Z axis works, because it works automatically. A model's height is determined by where it is standing rather than by specific rules governing height.

I don't think you'll find anyone who will ever say that skimmers/jump infantry need to move in arcs, so this is just being deliberately obtuse.

You need to be careful dictating how 'everybody' plays...

The same was said about people measuring horizontally for disembarking... which this thread has proven is not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide

The actual mechanics of this have already been covered, so I'll just point out that this isn't a new argument. It was argued on and off last edition as well.

At our LGS we measure to and from the base, including meltas at half range etc cause of this kind of crap

insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote: In other words, X and Y are freely variable in most circumstances, but for any given X+Y there is generally only one Z,

But the fact that there is a Z, and that Z can be different depending on where the model is placed, proves that the game is inherently 3D.

Specifically, we don't need a rule covering how the Z axis works, because it works automatically. A model's height is determined by where it is standing rather than by specific rules governing height.

But the BIG difference here is that the Valkyrie's Z is significantly different to any other model's Z given the same X+Y coordinates. Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level). Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.

Trasvi wrote:But the BIG difference here is that the Valkyrie's Z is significantly different to any other model's Z given the same X+Y coordinates.

Sure, but that's a side effect of GW packaging it with a honking great base, not a product of an inherently 2D ruleset...

Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level).

Except for skimmers and jetbikes, obviously...

Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.

I agree. But I'm not sure now if you're responding to my post or just making a random point...

Z height is not the same for any units on a hill or in ruins either.

IMO this is just more people stuck in 4th ed thinking.

Many people played 4th ed LoS wrong, and as a result played a largely 2D game. Now that TLoS has been "introduced" (again... it existed in 4th ed, people just didn't realize it) and there is even more affirmation that 40k is indeed a 3D game (every time you check LoS you're using three dimensions), but people don't want to change how they've been playing.

insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote:But the BIG difference here is that the Valkyrie's Z is significantly different to any other model's Z given the same X+Y coordinates.

Sure, but that's a side effect of GW packaging it with a honking great base, not a product of an inherently 2D ruleset...

Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level).

Except for skimmers and jetbikes, obviously...

Well.. not really. The game wouldn't function significantly different if Skimmers were one inch closer to the ground/

Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.

I agree. But I'm not sure now if you're responding to my post or just making a random point...

Except for the fact that LoS is drawn from a model's "eyes." or the weapon if mounted on a vehicle.

Since different models are different sizes, the Z coordinate from which they draw LoS are individual to each model independent (at least partially) of the height of the terrain they are standing on.

40k is 3D almost entirely.

The only real exception that I can find is for working out how many hits a template or blast causes.

I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Oooh snap! (sorry couldn't resist)

Polonius wrote:I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?

Trasvi wrote:Well.. not really. The game wouldn't function significantly different if Skimmers were one inch closer to the ground/

I wasn't suggesting that it would. I was respondng to your claim that all models other than the Valk are at ground level, nothing more.

Isn't the honking great base what the entire issue is about ?

The post you were responding to was about whether or not the game is inherently 3D. You point that a particular model with a honking great base needs special rules to function (which I've never disagreed with in the first place) seemed an odd response to that.

There haven't been any aspects of the game where significant height variation on the model has been a factor, yet.

Other than LOS?

Specifically, all the rules in 40k seem to assume that your model is touching the ground, or at least close enough that it doesn't matter.

Well, yes, of course they do. Because gravity works.

That doesn't make the game 2D, because it's still using 3D models, and using a LOS system that relies on tracing a line from the model's head (in its actual, physical, 3D location) to the target's body (in its actual, physical, 3D location).

For the game to be functionally 2D we would ignore the physical model, and any terrain it is standing on, and just trace a line from model base to model base, and check if there's anything in between.

For most units and vehicles, the point where their base touches the ground is where anything significant is determined from.

Again, not because the game is 2-dimensional, but because for the mechanics that rely on models touching, or for measuring distances, that's the most convenient point, because that's where the base that defines the model's footprint is.

But all that base does is define a footprint, not define the entire model, as would be the case in a 2D game.

In the cases where it isn't (tall vehicles/walkers with weapons etc) the model extends the entire way from the base to the weapon.

Not sure what you mean here.

To me, is seems that the rules are a little unclear of where the Valkyrie actually is. In LOS terms, it is up in the air. In assault terms, its on the ground. In shooting terms, on the ground. In transport terms, in the air.

In all of these cases, it's in the air. The assault rules allow you to assault the skimmer by contacting the base because assaulting involves grenades, short ranged shooting and rock hurling as well as fisticuffs.

If there is flat ground at (10,10), then no matter what unit type, you are at z=0.

Unless you're a skimmer or a jetbike, in which case you're at z=0+ somewhere between half an inch and an inch and a half, depending on the flight stem used.

And when referencing points on the model, (drawing LOS from the model, for example) the z will potentially be different for every different model.

willydstyle wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?

Because LOS requires literally being able to trace a line from the weapon to the model. If anything, they limited the arc from a full 90 degress of vertical arc.

Look, models can be higher or lower, that's undisputed. there simply are hills. I think the more references there are to specfic rules that explain how things work in 3d, the better the evidence is that the overall rules don't really operate in 3d. They're rules exceptions.

Polonius wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?

Because LOS requires literally being able to trace a line from the weapon to the model. If anything, they limited the arc from a full 90 degress of vertical arc.

Look, models can be higher or lower, that's undisputed. there simply are hills. I think the more references there are to specfic rules that explain how things work in 3d, the better the evidence is that the overall rules don't really operate in 3d. They're rules exceptions.

I think that's kind of my point: a core rule (Line of Sight) is completely three dimensional, and is determined by the actual size, shape, and even mobility of the model firing the weapon... so why should three-dimensional rules be considered exceptions rather than the norm?