So, a situation which came to my attention in a recent game of 40k has caused me to do some thinking on the subject of the Valkyrie and the Vendetta. The situation involves the FAQ ruling regarding vehicles that cannot move their entire model onto the table when entering from reserves, being destroyed. Leaving aside the fact that this means it's impossible to bring certain vehicles on from reserves, (Baneblades, lol), I wanted to examine how this affects the Valk and Vendetta.

Now, this may not be how everyone played it and I can certainally understand, but my local group allways treated the base as the important part for deciding where it actually was. Which made a 6" move onto the table from outflanking or reserves acceptable. The fact that the tail overhung the edge of the table was not really considered an issue, since the important part... the base, was fully on the table. This made the Vendetta my favored choice for shifting a unit of melta vets into position. It could slip onto the table, get a juicy side or rear armour shot on a hostile vehicle with it's three TL lascannons, and then either drop the melta vets there, or attempt to move them into position next turn. The important part was, it got a turn of shooting off.

Now of course, you cant do this. The Valk/Vend model is too large to move on 6", forcing it to move 12" at least. This reduces it to firing a single TL lascannon, which while nice, isn't that likely to do much. It has in essence become just a transport, since most enemies dont tend to let it live for long once it's on the table. The cheaper Valk is a much better choice for this particular role now. (Or using other means to outflank Chimeras, such as Creed, Al'Rahem, or even dare I say it, Storm Troopers!). You dont really want to start the Vendetta on the table, since it's often a very high priority target for the opposition. It's heavily armed, only moderately armoured, and nigh impossible to hide. The impact it can have, has been greatly lessened and other, more survivable heavy weapons platforms are now looking more attractive. One example would be three, lascannon armed scout sentinels. They're 20 points more than the Vendetta, but can still outflank, and are considerably more survivable. Less mobile to be sure, but the mobility aspect is less important from the perspective of directing lascannon fire at targets, given the long reach of the lascannon.

Now, it's possible I'm looking at this a touch too dismally, but I tend to try and build my list to be as efficient, and effective as possible. And really the Vendetta is looking less attractive, now that I know I cannot get it a free turn of shooting before it gets blown out of the sky. I'm basically hoping for first turn, and then praying my opponent doesn't sieze. I should be clear, I'm not looking for 'Well it COULD...' or 'In this one game I...' or even 'But it's cool so...'. I'm purely concerned with sustainable effectiveness.

Vendettas still rock the house. They were ridiculous before, this tames them down a little bit, but still a wrecking house of awesome.

And Valks it really shouldn't matter, weren't you moving them on 12 from an outflank anyway?

Truth be told, I wasn't using Valkyries at all before. I used the Vendetta exclusively.

I'm curious as to your statement that Vendettas still rock though, could you provide some information on why? As things stand right now, any Vendetta I put down will be summarily blown out of the sky at the earliest possible opportunity by my opponent. And lets face it, it's not hard to do. They're only AV12, and impossible to hide. Given that the only way I get to actually fire those lovely TL lascannons is if I win first turn... only a 50/50 chance, I cant see why they would be a better choice than spending those points elsewhere.

GW giveth and taketh away. Now that scout move grants the 4+ cover save for moving fast -- its not as neccesary to reserve em.

And frankly the base is not the most important part of the model, dunno why you think that. Still have to fire from the weapons on the wings (something people hung over the edge alot) and still have to target the hull (in which the tail is arguably part of). How did you resolve blasts when half your model could hang over the edge? Or getting to shoot from a weapon mount that wasn't even on the table (potentially getting shots at vehicles you wouldn't normally be able to get)?

Also, am I the only one that sees the disadvantages of the model's size and positioning as one of the factors for the low cost?

Moving the Vendetta flat-out is pretty much negating the entire point of taking it in the first place, the three TL lascannons. If it has to move flat out just to stay alive, it's not shooting, and if it's not shooting, why did I take it? Plus, a 4+ save still isn't neccesarily going to save it from getting blown out of the sky. I could of course, use it as a transport and blitz it forwards 24" from the word go... but the Valk does that for 30 points less.

As to your question about the base, I honestly couldn't say why. It's just how my local group allways played it. I think part of it was that we tend more towards common sense when we run into hazy rules questions. We thought 'Surely just because it's a big model, it shouldn't be impared from something as basic as coming onto the table'. Of course, GW's FAQ's often dont follow common sense, and sadly while we err towards common sense on rules that are unclear, we do follow clear FAQ rulings, however bizzare they appear to be.

winterman wrote:GW giveth and taketh away. Now that scout move grants the 4+ cover save for moving fast -- its not as neccesary to reserve em.

What winterman was getting at in his point is the fact that before the game begins you get to scout move the vendetta. So you always start a game with the 4+ cover save for the vendetta if you are going second. This greatly reduces the need to reserve the vendetta to avoid it getting shot down before it does anything.

Warmaster wrote:
What winterman was getting at in his point is the fact that before the game begins you get to scout move the vendetta. So you always start a game with the 4+ cover save for the vendetta if you are going second. This greatly reduces the need to reserve the vendetta to avoid it getting shot down before it does anything.

Exactly. At a minimum, if you start on the board, you have a good chance of getting to shoot all three Lascannons on Turn 1 at the very least due to the Scout move. It might be more difficult to get side shots now, but you can almost guarantee any guaranteed squad can get somewhere useful.

Yes, I got that, sorry if I wasn't clear in my reply. My point was that a 4+ save does not neccesarily keep it alive. I wasn't trying to suggest that it's IMPOSSIBLE to get a turn of shooting with the Vendetta now, by no means is that the case. It's entirely possible for it to sit perfectly still through a turn of enemy shooting, and come off none the worse. Or it could turbo-scout and make all of it's 4+ saves, or my enemy might not even shoot at it at all. But it's not really a certain thing.

I tend to break my forces down into 3 types.

1) I can protect them from getting killed on turn 1, either by reserving them, or plain hiding them.
2) I can reasonably expect them to survive turn 1 shooting in good shape. Russes fall into this one as an example, since AV14 is remarkably hard to defeat at long range.
3) I dont particularly care if they survive turn 1 or not. Usually because they're cheap, redundant, or preferrably both.

The Vendetta doesn't fall into any of those. At 130 points, while not devastatingly expensive, it's not exactly cheap either. It's impossible to protect for certain on turn 1, I cant hide it, and I cant reserve it. And at AV12 I cant reasonably expect it to survive a turn of shooting.

As a note on the turbo-boost thing, remember all it takes is me to fail a save on just 1 glance or pen. Any roll except weapon destroyed, and it cant contribute next turn. And even weapon destroyed is reducing it's effective firepower by 1/3, before it ever gets to do anything.

If they are pumping AT shots into vendettas that have a 1+ cover then they AREN'T shooting at manticores, medusas, hydras, melta vets, plasma CCS, and any other amount of nastiness guard can bring. And if all of those things aren't in cover their shots go half as far against the vendettas.

You can still reserve them if you want, but the scout move is usually plenty. And if you go first then it isn't a factor at all.

130 pts for 3 lascannons that hit 75% of the time, on an AV 12 fast skimmer, and can transport of 50pt sws to score, it's just utterly brutal.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:If they are pumping AT shots into vendettas that have a 1+ cover

Vendettas can get a 1+ cover save? Well, that changes everything!

Seriously tho, I can see your point and I agree, that the package is very attractive. I just tend to be very risk-averse. I will possibly still use Valks to transport my melta vets, although I'm starting to lean more in the direction of outflanking Chimeras by various means. I may toss the Vendetta on the table again, but given the levels of animosity my gaming group tends to display towards it, I dont rate it's survival chances, and 130 points is a fair chunk. (We typically play at 1500).

It also depends on what else you are running. If you do all AV12 vehicles then all the stuff they want to shoot at the vendettas they need for all your other nastiness. If you have russes, sentinels, or infantry the decision of what guns to shoot where is a lot easier.

I use 2 in 1-2k pts, hardly ever reserve them, and I usually have at least one still alive at the end of the game.

That much fire power for 130, it can't be super survivable. But if you play it right or you have a list that gels with it they are too good not to take.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:That much fire power for 130, it can't be super survivable. But if you play it right or you have a list that gels with it they are too good not to take.

That's exactly what makes the enemy shoot them out of the sky first, even if I do have loads of other AV12. Manticores are almost allways hidden, and Chimeras and hellhounds aren't as big a threat on turn 1. The giant gunship you cant hide is the priority target. (Yes, I'm aware there's other AV12 hulls in the guard codex, but frankly I dont rate most of them for various reasons that are a whole other topic).

Edit: I realise I'm sounding a touch combative about this, so I apologise for that. Mostly I'm just frustrated because I'm not sure how to allow the Vendetta to perform it's job (Shooting things). Every game I field it, it pretty much gets only a single turn of shooting when it comes on from outflank, unless I'm allready winning heavily by that point. It doens't allways die, but it does spend the rest of the game shaken and turbo-boosting for it's life, or else falling out of the sky in flames. Given how awesome it is when it DOES get to shoot, it frustrates me that I cant be sure to get it shooting.

Why not reserve it, blow up as much enemy stuff that can hurt it as possible, and then turbo-boost it in when it arrives? The enemy will have much-reduced fire to put on it, you will get the cover save, and the next turn you can get your 3-las volley off on the side or rear.

Where is it in relationship to the rest of the army? Do you move it forward because it is carrying troops? Do you hang back and hug tables edges? What armies are your friends playing?

And Jimole is right, if the vendetta is going to be that instrumental to your plans, take out the things that can take out the vendettas. You should have more tools to do that than anyone except another guard player.

If you are this frustrated by it I think this is more likely a playstyle issue with them as opposed to a true survivability issue.

130 pts AV12 with 4+ save kept at the "base-line" away from shorter range anti-tank is still not that easy to take down. Even if they do there are other targets they cant shoot at. Chimeras may not be a big threat turn 1 but they will turn 2. Also, long-range anti-tank is used to remove vehicles from range. If the close range anti-tank (melta vets in chimeras) gets a free turn to move forward when the enemy focuses on the vendettas they have kind of fulfilled their role in another way.

I don't see the problem with hiding vendettas. Our usual gaming table has some rock needles looking like this:

http://www.gerdsreisen.de/USA/Arizona/ir12/slides/ir12_18.jpg

About 1-2" diameter, 8-12" tall. It is possible to completly hide an entire vendetta behind one of those from at least one unit, and its quite easy to get your plane obscured.

On a side note, I don't own any of the two modles(I just find myself shooting them a lot), but isn't it possible to get it onto the board with a 6" move by turnining it 45°? I remember reading something like that, but the source ceased to exist.

Jidmah wrote:On a side note, I don't own any of the two modles(I just find myself shooting them a lot), but isn't it possible to get it onto the board with a 6" move by turnining it 45°? I remember reading something like that, but the source ceased to exist.

No, just getting it's center point far enough to do that turn and keep the wings on is more than 6". The thing is huge.

I guess the needs to move 12+ on turn arriving makes it a bit fairer, and gives a good reason to take a few of them, you can take 1 down, but not get them all.

The vendetta is a good unit, but for me its not too overpowered. Mine has actually been "meh" sometimes, as we play with a lot of cover here. The passengers it carries (usually an SWS with 2 flamers and a demo charge) have proven to be more of the "savior" than the vendetta itself, as I play a hybrid list which has a lot of long range anti tank weapons (infantry sutocannons plus the heavy support plus the vendetta)

In mechvet lists, I see the value of the vendetta as a gunship, as besides the artillery/tanks the vendettas are your source of long range antitank fire.

We have some three story ruins that I can occasionally eek out a cover save from, but other than that, I agree they're not survivable, but I don't think that's a huge problem. They're slightly more than half the cost of a land raider and an insane amount of firepower for it. I take two and generally end up losing one first round. I try to play the range game round one and stay out of the range of enemy missile launchers/lascannons as much possible, but it doesn't always help. That's just how it goes, and sometimes if you're lucky, the opponent will overstretch himself or waste finite resources getting to them. But they don't blow up because they're too big/weak/tall/not hanging over the edge. The reason is because they're fething SCARY.

How many are you taking? Are you squadroning them? What normally blows them up when you play?

The valk and the vendetta are still very well priced for what they are and what they can do. I would seriously kill for them.

GW just had to make them seriously overpowered to drum up sales for those nice $60 dollar models. Now that they have reached their sales targets they are toning them down a bit.

Okay, so normally we play 1500 points. My list varies a little but generally tends to contain;

CCS, quad plasma, Chimera

2 x Melta Vets (1 in chimera, other to ride in Vendetta)

1 x Plasma vets (Chimera)

Manticore

Leman Russ Executioner + plasma sponsons

2 x Hellhound + hull multi-melta

Vendetta

That's the general outline of the list, and it's worked well so far. As stated, the Vendetta would usually outflank, get a good solid round of shooting, drop off the melta vets, and then die horribly or get pinged endlessly for the rest of the game, unless I was allready winning heavily at that point.

My usual opponents include;

Tau - god damned railguns!
Battle Sisters - Exorcists usually took the Vendetta out of the air in short order (He typically runs 2)
Space Wolves - Long Fangs are the usual culprit here
Blood Angels - Mostly his Stormravens, but BA aren't so bad.
Tyranids - 2 players. 1 generally not an issue, the other a little more so. Impaler cannons and Tyrannofex can be an issue.
Eldar - Depends on what he's running, he varies it alot. Bright lances, shining spears can both be irritating.

Taking 2 isn't really much on the cards. For one thing, at 1500 the list is a bit on the tight side, and for another I only own 1, and it's not the easiest thing in the world to proxy. If I just want fast transport, that's not such an issue. Valkyries are 30 points cheaper, and can just turbo boost/move 12" on from outflank and it's not an issue, since I couldn't care less about their firepower, only their transported unit.

Well a Tau and Wolves army should be able to take down one AV12 vehicle. If you have trouble with the rest I say adjust you playing. I suggesst running two or none. Dupliciation and rendundancy are your friends.

Ah, that does put you in a rather tough spot. Two Vendettas can be resilient, because you can force them to go after one or the other, but one just kind of paints a bit of a target on itself, especially in that list. Chimeras are slow, LRE is fairly slow, and the Hellhounds could well still take a full turn to get to you before they start putting on the REAL hurt, depending on deployment. You're also in a bind because what would have been my first recommendation, taking a lascannon HWS, doesn't really apply without a platoon.

Not really sure what to recommend in your particular situation. I think you're paying too many points for the LRE in a 1500 point list, but that may just be me.

I would like to add that your vets would probably be better suited in another Chimera. That way the AV12 saturation would help distract them from your Vendetta. As it stands now, not only would I get to knock out a Vendetta, but I would also stop a 10 man squad by doing so. You don't need to give additional incentive to target it.

What else do you have that you could add to the list?

Actually, I'd have said the worst out of the lot that I face are the Battle Sisters. Those exorcists make long fangs look a little limp. D6 S8 AP1 shots each, per turn? Ow.

I think my likely approach is going to be dropping the Vendetta tbh. I'd have to lose something elsewhere in the list to cram a second one in, and tbh at £45 each, I'm unlikely to be buying another one any time soon. The question is what to replace it with. The vets it was carrying will still need a ride, so at least 55 points of it's cost will go towards another Chimera. I could probably add Marbo, since he's allways entertaining, and then spread the remaining points around the rest of the list in upgrades. (Perhaps some HK missiles on the Chimeras)

Did you forget something in your list above? I put it into army builder and I only got 1400.

Oh, probably an assortment of things. That's just the rough outline of the list. I frequently run an officer of the fleet, and occasionally an astropath as well. I also put various toys on the company commander, etc. Occasionally give the melta vets in the Vendetta demolitions, and shotguns, etc.

I've come up with a variation that doesn't have a Vendetta, looks a bit like this;

Company Command Squad, 4 Plasma, officer of the fleet, plasma pistol + power weapon for commander, chimera with hull heavy flamer + HK missile.

2 x Melta Vets, shotguns, power weapon, chimera with hull heavy flamer + HK missile.

Plasma vets, chimera with hull heavy flamer + HK missile.

2 x Hellhound with hull multi-melta

Leman Russ Executioner with plasma sponsons, hull heavy flamer

Manticore, hull heavy flamer

Marbo.

Really, the power weapons were an afterthought because I had a few points left over. Giving the melta vets shotguns and a power weapon with the sgt gives them the option of shooting then assaulting as a follow up. I couldn't reall find anything better to do with 30 spare points.

My big concern with trading in a Vendetta for Marbo is that you're changing out one of your two long range antitank pieces for something that fills a completely different role.

How about:

CCS - 4 plas, chimera

Meltavets in chimera
Meltavets in chimera
Plasmavets in chimera

Hellhound - mm
Hellhound - mm

LRE - 2 plascannon sponsons
Manticore
Manticore

That gives you a secondary manticore for long range anti-tank/horde control, special weapons for dealing with MEQ, and all in all feels very well rounded. You could even go so far as to, with the remaining points, toss two scout sentinels for outflanking multiLAZORS! and have 5 points left for whatever upgrade sounds good.

The problem here is you're trying to have it all. High mobility, long range firepower, cheap price tag, oh - and I want it to be invincible for the first turn. Not going to happen, nor should it ever happen. There needs to be an element of risk when using any unit, wether it be the chance it can't make it to the enemy fast enough or the possibility of getting blown up 1st turn. You get the benefit of a guaranteed 4+ cover save the first round, which is far better than my vindicators get if I don't get to go first and pop smoke.

The point has been made before, and I agree, that you're making target priority too easy for your opponent with that list. Why would they possibly shoot anything else first?

Can someone link to this FAQ?

Tech Brother Torgo wrote:The problem here is you're trying to have it all. High mobility, long range firepower, cheap price tag, oh - and I want it to be invincible for the first turn. Not going to happen, nor should it ever happen. There needs to be an element of risk when using any unit

The thing is though, I can trade the Vendetta for other units that are lower risk than the Vendetta is.

daedalus wrote:That gives you a secondary manticore for long range anti-tank/horde control, special weapons for dealing with MEQ, and all in all feels very well rounded. You could even go so far as to, with the remaining points, toss two scout sentinels for outflanking multiLAZORS! and have 5 points left for whatever upgrade sounds good.

Yes, the dual Manticore option is something I've given serious consideration to. I like the Manticore alot, so taking 2 seems to be pretty solid.

You could always use modeling to your advantage and make it so you in fact can fit the entire vendetta on.

And I remain unconvinced that parts of a model hanging over the edge count as off table... can anyone link said FAQ?

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620222a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_2.pdf

The specific section reads;

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is
unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One of my housemates just proposed an amusing solution.

Shift the stand to the forward edge of the base, and cut the top of the stand (Where it slots into the Valk) at approximately a 45 degree angle, so when it's mounted the Valk is flying in a nose-down attitude, rather like a helicopter might. Problem solved, it can now move 6" onto the table!

That's dirty, but it's a fast skimmer, so it can hover in one place... I would imagine that would give it some of the capabilities of a helicopter.

LOL Modeling to you're advantage might lose you some friends .

Either way the best thing to do is to run more Vendettas and/or run more threats. Vendettas are prolly the threats the enemies can see so they get shot first, either way this is to your advantage as your other Units can wreck havoc as the enemy will have to dedicate a shooting phase just to deal with the Vendettas.

not to mention not being able to target anything not almost directly below you.

Remodeling it to allow it to do something the stock model can't is not going to fly with most opponents or TOs.

As noted, the Vendetta is still excellent. The problem is that it was incredibly nasty before, and now it's been toned down to very nasty. Naturally the OP is feeling a loss.

Furycat, I agree with the earlier sentiments that the problem is one of usage and context, not that the unit is bad. Since in your list there are no other good T1 targets, the list handicaps the single Vendetta in that sense. If you want to keep using the same list, I'd recommend using the Vendetta the same way you did before- if going second, Outflank it. You'll only get a single TL las shot the turn you come on the board, but you will also get 12" of movement instead of merely 6", which will be to your advantage in positioning to best deploy the vets on the following turn to hit an optimal target.

Yeah, so I should probably clarify I wasn't serious about alterning the model to allow it to move on 6" and still fire everything. Tounge in cheek moment.

I agree, I could still use it to outflank and move on 12" and deliver it's nasty melta vet cargo, but then why use a Vendetta for that? The Valk does the same job, but costs 30 points less. As it stands, I think I'll probably drop the use of either from the 1500 list. It used to be viable, because it was possible to ensure 1 turn of full-force shooting. As it isn't now, and I cant realistically field 2 or more of them, I think it's likely I'lll switch to using the double Manticore build, or maybe the Marbo build vs one of my regular BA/Nid opponents, simply because it's funny the amount of rage he has for Marbo. (It's all in good spirits though!).

I think alot of people who have been generous enough to contribute to this thread are correct, fielding multiple Vendettas still gives the opponent something serious to worry about, and it's still a significant amount of firepower, but that's something that will have to wait until a much later date, and probably a larger points value.

I think you can realistically field two of them. You're just a bit soured on them at the moment and don't want to buy a second model at the moment, which I can understand.

Did you hard-glue the weapons? Would you be easily able to make it a Valkrie and try using it that way?

Furycat wrote:Yeah, so I should probably clarify I wasn't serious about alterning the model to allow it to move on 6" and still fire everything. Tounge in cheek moment.

I agree, I could still use it to outflank and move on 12" and deliver it's nasty melta vet cargo, but then why use a Vendetta for that? The Valk does the same job, but costs 30 points less. As it stands, I think I'll probably drop the use of either from the 1500 list. It used to be viable, because it was possible to ensure 1 turn of full-force shooting. As it isn't now, and I cant realistically field 2 or more of them, I think it's likely I'lll switch to using the double Manticore build, or maybe the Marbo build vs one of my regular BA/Nid opponents, simply because it's funny the amount of rage he has for Marbo. (It's all in good spirits though!).

I think alot of people who have been generous enough to contribute to this thread are correct, fielding multiple Vendettas still gives the opponent something serious to worry about, and it's still a significant amount of firepower, but that's something that will have to wait until a much later date, and probably a larger points value.

honestly the valk does it for the exact same price; You want Rocket pods. You can then move 12" and Fire Everything, and do so every turn. 2 Large Blasts/turn is nice.

I currently own a single Valkyrie, which I glued rocket pods onto, since I put it together before I became one with the wonder of magnets. I've just been proxying it as a Vendetta in virtually every game since (After all, the difference between the two is pretty marginal). As for the Valk with the rocket pods, I latched onto it intially for exactly the reasons stipulated... large blast defensive weapons? Sounds great! However, I've since come to realise that really... it fills a niche not actually required in a mech guard list. It kills light infantry. Big deal, I have plenty of things in my army that do that... better than the Valk ever will. If I was fielding a Valk now, based on what I've learned since the new guard codex released, I would likely run it as a stock 100 point version. Yeah, the missiles are crap, but who cares? It's job is to put a squad where I want it. Any shooting it does is a secondary consideration, and pretty much irrelevant in the face of the shooting the rest of my army brings.

I could at some point in future buy a second, and run dual Vendettas... but even then I'm somewhat put off. I'm basically buying two, because I KNOW one will get shot out of the sky, likely before ever getting to do anything. That's not just 130 points that gets to do nothing (Plus anything it's carrying), it's 45 god damned pounds that sits on the table for a single turn then gets taken off. Thanks, but no thanks GW. I'll stick with Chimeras. They're cheaper in both points and pounds, and I can actually reliably hide the little buggers.

Furycat wrote:I currently own a single Valkyrie, which I glued rocket pods onto, since I put it together before I became one with the wonder of magnets. I've just been proxying it as a Vendetta in virtually every game since (After all, the difference between the two is pretty marginal). As for the Valk with the rocket pods, I latched onto it intially for exactly the reasons stipulated... large blast defensive weapons? Sounds great! However, I've since come to realise that really... it fills a niche not actually required in a mech guard list. It kills light infantry. Big deal, I have plenty of things in my army that do that... better than the Valk ever will. If I was fielding a Valk now, based on what I've learned since the new guard codex released, I would likely run it as a stock 100 point version. Yeah, the missiles are crap, but who cares? It's job is to put a squad where I want it. Any shooting it does is a secondary consideration, and pretty much irrelevant in the face of the shooting the rest of my army brings.

I could at some point in future buy a second, and run dual Vendettas... but even then I'm somewhat put off. I'm basically buying two, because I KNOW one will get shot out of the sky, likely before ever getting to do anything. That's not just 130 points that gets to do nothing (Plus anything it's carrying), it's 45 god damned pounds that sits on the table for a single turn then gets taken off. Thanks, but no thanks GW. I'll stick with Chimeras. They're cheaper in both points and pounds, and I can actually reliably hide the little buggers.

That gives you the slot for the Dog fast attack tanks..I'm a bit of a fan of the devil dog myself.....

As well as sentinels and rough riders...I like Rough Riders a LOT personally.....as a reserve it can react to the enemy thrusts and thus will not get shot early on in the game...

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is
unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

Actually, thinking about it If the units base is fully on the table, it is fully on the table, the unit is still on the table, also you cannot assault the valk/vendettas tail, only its base.

Remodeling it to allow it to do something the stock model can't is not going to fly with most opponents or TOs.

Normally I would agree but as long as you don't change the base in any way and just attach the model to the stick in a more helicopter style steep angle you're hardly doing any remodeling at all. This isn't a case of a crouching Wraithlord. This is a case of GW not realising some models are way too big for this game and the opponents of IG players trying to hold on for the small advantage they think they got via FAQ. Just angle the Vendetta so it can fit on the table when it moves 6".

Therion wrote:

Remodeling it to allow it to do something the stock model can't is not going to fly with most opponents or TOs.

Normally I would agree but as long as you don't change the base in any way and just attach the model to the stick in a more helicopter style steep angle you're hardly doing any remodeling at all. This isn't a case of a crouching Wraithlord. This is a case of GW not realising some models are way too big for this game and the opponents of IG players trying to hold on for the small advantage they think they got via FAQ. Just angle the Vendetta so it can fit on the table when it moves 6".

You are changing the model to gain favorable in game advantages. That is the definition of modeling to advantage which is explicitly against the rules.

What a nonsense, it might be the rules but plain stupid.

I play against guard and would never stoop so low as to try and tell my opponent he couldnt move 6" onto the board because the tail of his model was hanging off.

Plain rubbish that cannot be explained away in any reasonable fashion.

I want to beat my opponenet without relying on such nonsense.

Therion wrote:

Remodeling it to allow it to do something the stock model can't is not going to fly with most opponents or TOs.

Normally I would agree but as long as you don't change the base in any way and just attach the model to the stick in a more helicopter style steep angle you're hardly doing any remodeling at all. This isn't a case of a crouching Wraithlord. This is a case of GW not realising some models are way too big for this game and the opponents of IG players trying to hold on for the small advantage they think they got via FAQ. Just angle the Vendetta so it can fit on the table when it moves 6".

As has been said, this is IG players unable to cope with the FAQ nerfing them, so it's obviously those "other beardy guys" who are wrong...

You are changing the model to gain favorable in game advantages. That is the definition of modeling to advantage which is explicitly against the rules.

Incorrect. The model is unchanged. It's being attached to the base in a slightly different angle than you were expecting. The base is still the same and the model is still the same and the stick is in the same hole as before. The rules don't cover the allowed angle variation of Valkyries. There are no set parameters for this. People do this all the time too with all of their models.

As has been said, this is IG players unable to cope with the FAQ nerfing them

You're wrong as they're coping just fine. It's you who is unable to cope with the fact that the IG players are seeing what the problem is and are adapting.

Therion wrote:

You are changing the model to gain favorable in game advantages. That is the definition of modeling to advantage which is explicitly against the rules.

Incorrect. The model is unchanged. It's being attached to the base in a slightly different angle than you were expecting. The base is still the same and the model is still the same and the stick is in the same hole as before. The rules don't cover the allowed angle variation of Valkyries. There are no set parameters for this. People do this all the time too with all of their models.

That is ridiculous. The flying stand which you have to change is part of the model. I can't put my missile speeder and a three foot tall stand and claim that is has LOS to everything. And if the "people doing it all the time" are gaining in game advantages from it they are cheating.

The flying stand which you have to change is part of the model.

There are a few things you should be aware of:

i) Page 3 of the rulebook.
ii) Models and their bases are two very different things.
iii) What you suggested is cheating because you're not using the base the model was supplied with.

This game allows for quite a lot of modeling to your own advantage and to your own disadvantage as well. Both are evident in pretty much every finished army.

Modifications purely for aesthetic purposes are fine and allowed all the time. A modification to gain a rules advantage is easily spotted and will be vetoed by an aware opponent. The difference between extending a flying stand to mount the skimmer two feet high, or angling the stand/model to achieve an extreme angle so the model is less than 6" long measured horizontally from above, is merely a difference of degree, not of kind. Both are subject to opponent's permission as variant basing schemes, and will be forbidden by any TO who's awake.

Hanging the tail or wings off the table/out of the area of play, whether to get more guns firing on the turn of entry, or simply to make it harder for enemy units to reach the Valk/Vend/SR with their guns or assault, has always been illegal. The FAQ just made it more explicit and threw in the hardcore consequence for failing to enter fully.

You are cutting up or altering the base for a game effect. Can I cut up a base so it's 2 inches long instead of 1inch around? That way I get an exta inch when I exit vehicles?

What you are suggesting is cheating and terrible sportsmanship. Just accept that vendettas only get 1 lascannon off of reserve. They are awesome enough anyway without screwing people.

Pretty much with Therion 100% on this.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You are cutting up or altering the base for a game effect. Can I cut up a base so it's 2 inches long instead of 1inch around? That way I get an exta inch when I exit vehicles?

What you are suggesting is cheating and terrible sportsmanship. Just accept that vendettas only get 1 lascannon off of reserve. They are awesome enough anyway without screwing people.

Now you're trying to make it a moral issue? Something is already good so I shouldn't be allowed to build a model and play by the rules? If anyone of you (you too Mannahnin) could point it out how exactly is a small angle variation of the Valkyrie in any way illegal according to the rulebook we could stop debating this nonsense and put it to rest. It is starting to seem obvious that you can't since a few of you haven't even opened the rulebook before you started arguing about Land Speeders with three feet tall bases and whatnot.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You are cutting up or altering the base for a game effect. Can I cut up a base so it's 2 inches long instead of 1inch around? That way I get an exta inch when I exit vehicles?

Not even close to the same thing.

How is it not? I'm cutting up the model (or the base) so it can do something it otherwise wouldn't have been able to do?

How is it not?

Because the Valkyrie (the model) is unchanged and the base is unchanged but the two have been glued together in an angle instead of horizontally. The fact that someone even tries to argue that this could be against the rules is ludicrous.

If you change the base like that, you are changing the model. It's footprint will change for a variety of effects: assault, blast weapons, range.

That amounts to modeling for advantage which is against the rules.

Your position is indefensible, Therion. You are going to have to make a physical modification (cutting the base, adding green stuff or other putty, or something) to get this to work. Even if you somehow manage to get it to work with a wad of platic-melting epoxy, it's still functionally the same thing as modifying the base or model, and is clearly Modeling For Advantage; changing the stock model to gain an advantage in game.

And any competent opponent or TO who isn't specifically trying to enable you to get around the rules is going to call BS.

You won't be able to glue it at any sort of angle that matters without cutting the stand. Cutting it = modeling to advantage.

I would kick you out of my tournament if you did that. You know that the stock model can't do something, so you are changing the stock model so it can. There's nothing else to be said.

If you change the base like that, you are changing the model. It's footprint will change for a variety of effects: assault, blast weapons, range.

That amounts to modeling for advantage which is against the rules.

We didn't change the base. We didn't change the model either. It's footprint might've changed though because of a variation in attachment. Now could you stop acting like you're the legislator, judge and jury and point out the rulebook page where it becomes evident to us why exactly this isn't allowed?

You are going to have to make a physical modification

It's still a matter of attachment only. What you said is completely irrelevant. I'm willing to reconsider if I only had a rules reference here and hopefully a specific one that specifies the angle variations of flying models, the exact spots on round bases where models have to stand on, etc.

Speaking as a TO, the final effect is what matters. If you have modified/assembled the kit in a way that garners you a significant game advantage over the stock normal assembly, I'm going to veto.

I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

Mannahnin wrote:Speaking as a TO, the final effect is what matters. If you have modified/assembled the kit in a way that garners you a significant game advantage over the stock normal assembly, I'm going to veto.

I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

Atleast you admit that you're going to enforce a house rule. Your motivations are your own.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You won't be able to glue it at any sort of angle that matters without cutting the stand. Cutting it = modeling to advantage.

Have you actually put this model together? Because there's no cutting necessary in the process Therion has described. You probably won't even have to glue it. The recess for the base is pretty deep and I've seen Valk/Vends at near 45 degree angles just by inserting the stand at an angle.

Mannahnin wrote:
I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

I probably wouldn't kick them right away either, I was fuming at the ridiculousness of the arguement. Now if they argued with me about, I would tell them they couldn't play with the vendettas the rest of the day. They fight on that then they get kicked out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You won't be able to glue it at any sort of angle that matters without cutting the stand. Cutting it = modeling to advantage.

Have you actually put this model together? Because there's no cutting necessary in the process Therion has described. You probably won't even have to glue it. The recess for the base is pretty deep and I've seen Valk/Vends at near 45 degree angles just by inserting the stand at an angle.

I own two of them, I play them all the time. To get an angle to do what is described the model would not only look ridiculous but you would either need to cut the stand of use three bottles of glue.

Have you actually put this model together? Because there's no cutting necessary in the process Therion has described. You probably won't even have to glue it. The recess for the base is pretty deep and I've seen Valk/Vends at near 45 degree angles just by inserting the stand at an angle.

They have no basis in the rules or even common GW practise in their argument. Normally I wouldn't be so sure but in this case their shallow position can only be explained by emotions of unwarranted hate of mechanised IG that has been a succesfull army in the US (much much more so than in Europe) for a good while now.

TO's like Mannahnin who make rulings like this because the sake of subjective game balance should just be open about it and enforce composition restrictions instead of fighting a losing battle about modeling freedom.

Sourclams, I'll be happy to check out the model. If it is indeed possible without any modification, I'll be very surprised. It's a darn long kit. And it will limit what the Valk can shoot at with a 22.5 degree upward traverse for its guns.

Therion wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Speaking as a TO, the final effect is what matters. If you have modified/assembled the kit in a way that garners you a significant game advantage over the stock normal assembly, I'm going to veto.

I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

Atleast you admit that you're going to enforce a house rule. Your motivations are your own.

No house rule. A clear and consistent implementation of the obvious intent of the rules when it comes to Modeling For Advantage. If you want to ignore the table edge being the end of the world, as it's always been, and overlap units off it, that's on you and your conscience. If your opponents are okay with it, have a party.

I own two of them, I play them all the time. To get an angle to do what is described the model would not only look ridiculous but you would either need to cut the stand of use three bottles of glue.

You're either being hyperbolic or you own a completely different run of the kit than what I have. The model naturally sits between 0 and 30 degrees off horizontal. With truly minimal adjustment to the flight stand you can get 45 or more.

I don't have the BRB next to me now but it says something about modelling to your advantage with scenic bases for characters and such and that you need your opponents permission. Altering the base of the valkyrie fits in this so it's not a house rule. It also says that models should be based on the supplied bases. Then you cant really go and cut in the base can you?

Anyways, I'm 100% behind that this is a clear case of modelling to your advantage since you are making a change to gain a benefit. And just a thought? With such an extreme angle, couldnt your opponent just claim that you just have LOS with your weapons 5" infront of your vendetta

Therion wrote:They have no basis in the rules or even common GW practise in their argument. Normally I wouldn't be so sure but in this case their shallow position can only be explained by emotions of unwarranted hate of mechanised IG that has been a succesfull army in the US (much much more so than in Europe) for a good while now.

Wow. I've always respected you, too. Certainly no emotions on your side, Mr. "shallow" and "hate".

And just a thought? With such an extreme angle, couldnt your opponent just claim that you just have LOS with your weapons 5" infront of your vendetta

No, because the angle is so shallow (45 degrees is not much) that the rules would allow LOS to be drawn to anything at the Vendettas level or lower.

Therion wrote:TO's like Mannahnin who make rulings like this because the sake of subjective game balance should just be open about it and enforce composition restrictions instead of fighting a losing battle about modeling freedom.

Players like Therion who react so strongly to being called out on breaking the rules should just be open about it and admit that they care more about winning or cadging a minor game advantage than they do about obeying the rules or being fair with their opponent.

Does that feel nice? It's the same kind of hyperbole. I think you're better than this, and you've lost perspective a bit, here. I know you're too good a player to need to stoop to this junk.

Wow. I've always respected you, too. Certainly no emotions on your side, Mr. "shallow" and "hate"

I don't own a single Vendetta model. Eventhough I occasionally might play with IG I have no vested interest. The fact that me and sourclams both see this as a complete non-issue while having the actual rulebook on our side should count for something. On the other side we have you and another tournament organiser who are actively calling anyone who play and model by the rulebook cheaters. I can't think of any compliments for your argument, I'm sorry.

sourclams wrote:

And just a thought? With such an extreme angle, couldnt your opponent just claim that you just have LOS with your weapons 5" infront of your vendetta

No, because the angle is so shallow (45 degrees is not much) that the rules would allow LOS to be drawn to anything at the Vendettas level or lower.

Hey, would you do us a favor, and try it out with one of your models and take pictures? Including from above showing the length with a "normal" (as pictured on the box) angle, vs the increased angle you need to get a 6" or less length, measured from directly above? One pic each, front and side, of the model mounted at each angle, should do it. It'd be nice to put the facts out there so we can all see it easily.

I'll see what I can do [about posting a pic or three later].

Therion wrote:

Wow. I've always respected you, too. Certainly no emotions on your side, Mr. "shallow" and "hate"

I don't own a single Vendetta model. Eventhough I occasionally might play with IG I have no vested interest. The fact that me and sourclams both see this as a complete non-issue while having the actual rulebook on our side should count for something. On the other side we have you and another tournament organiser who are actively calling anyone who play and model by the rulebook cheaters. I can't think of any compliments for your argument, I'm sorry.

Okay. I can appreciate the value of a good old stubborn Dakka rules argument from a neutral perspective. I don't play against them that often, either, so I'm not all that invested in the outcome either.

I disagree that this is allowable "by the rulebook". My argument is premised on the idea that the Valkyrie is sufficiently long (IIRC 8"+) that to get the angle needed, physical structural modification (of the model or base) will be required. If that is so, then you must concede that I am correct on the rules.

As a next step, I'd like to see photographic documentation, so we can establish the truth. I don't have a Valk, Vend, or SR in the house, so I can't physically check it myself until (at earliest) this weekend.

Therion wrote:They have no basis in the rules or even common GW practise in their argument. Normally I wouldn't be so sure but in this case their shallow position can only be explained by emotions of unwarranted hate of mechanised IGthat has been a succesfull army in the US (much much more so than in Europe) for a good while now.

I play mech IG. What I don't do is cheat.

I disagree that this is allowable "by the rulebook". My argument is premised on the idea that the Valkyrie is sufficiently long (IIRC 8"+) that to get the angle needed, physical structural modification (of the model or base) will be required. If that is so, then you must concede that I am correct on the rules.

I'll agree that if the base is being cut then it's not the same base the model was supplied with and therefore illegal. However I'm undecided whether small modifications to the underside of the Valkyrie model in order to allow the base to fit in a required angle would be against the rules. My instinct is that it isn't and that especially if the modification required for it is absolutely minimal (few millimeters of shaving plastic for example) then it should no question be allowed because one can just argue it's changed that way due to heavy use, transportation, wear and tear etc. I know I've had problems with the holes in the undersides of my Land Speeders atleast.

This thread belongs to the YMDC forum pretty much and I'm discussing in a similar fashion that we normally see there. Whether I respect (a lot) someone in the thread or not shouldn't affect the way I argue my opinion.

Mathematically to get the 12" long vendetta to fit into a 6" long space you need to mount it at a greater than 60 degree angle to fit the rear fins on. There is just no way that can happen on the normal mount. That requires extensive and obvious modification.

Wow... I allready said it was a suggestion made in jest by my housemate. I have no intention of trying to adjust my Valk/Vend in such a way.

I allready found a much simpler solution to the problem. My revised list no longer features a Valkyrie or Vendetta, and works just fine. Infact, it's going to save me alot of money as I start to step up to 2000+ points, prepping for the summer tourneys around here. I dont have to buy more £45 kits from GW, I can get by with much cheaper Chimeras instead.

There is one fundamental question that answers whether or not your extremely angled Vendetta is against the rules?

Why did you/wish to model it that way?

Therion wrote:

I disagree that this is allowable "by the rulebook". My argument is premised on the idea that the Valkyrie is sufficiently long (IIRC 8"+) that to get the angle needed, physical structural modification (of the model or base) will be required. If that is so, then you must concede that I am correct on the rules.

I'll agree that if the base is being cut then it's not the same base the model was supplied with and therefore illegal. However I'm undecided whether small modifications to the underside of the Valkyrie model in order to allow the base to fit in a required angle would be against the rules. My instinct is that it isn't and that especially if the modification required for it is absolutely minimal (few millimeters of shaving plastic for example) then it should no question be allowed because one can just argue it's changed that way due to heavy use, transportation, wear and tear etc. I know I've had problems with the holes in the undersides of my Land Speeders atleast.

I hear you, and can understand why you might draw the line there, and won't call you a dirty cheater for it. For my money, though, any modification at all, if done for the purpose of obtaining a game advantage, inevitably falls under the heading of MfA.

Therion wrote:This thread belongs to the YMDC forum pretty much and I'm discussing in a similar fashion that we normally see there. Whether I respect (a lot) someone in the thread or not shouldn't affect the way I argue my opinion.

Yes and no. I agree that this has become more of a YMDC discussion, and I think tone-wise most of it's been fine for the rather heated way we often allow debate to go on there (and in Tactics, for that matter). But when you start ascribing negative personal judgments and selfish ulterior motives to the other party in a debate, that's where you start to break the rules, and lose the respect of the audience. Opining that a differing opinion in this debate can only be explained by selfishness or hate is silly and inappropriate, especially when it's manifestly false, as in the case of ArtfcllyFlvrd, who plays the army himself, and me, whom I would rather expect you would know is not going to be that irrational. I think it's worth avoiding that kind of rhetoric even if the other parties involved are complete strangers, though.

You must understand you're going to get a heated response from people if you make them feel they are being tagged cheaters for being absolutely bona fide about their opinions and the way they play the game. The fact that you even brought up whether you would kick me out of your tournament or not was already enough of an insult for me to question why you would ever even consider such a thing in a case like this. I stand by my statements (which were addressed to both of you collectively instead of just one person). Whether ArtfcllyFlvrd plays IG or not is largely irrelevant just like it's irrelevant that I don't play IG actively. To me it was obvious that a rule that doesn't exist was being enforced in this thread and anyone who disagreed with it was being labeled an immoral cheater.

The much worse issue with the vendetta is: Can stuff move under it's wings/can it move over other stuff, and if you allow both/either of these, what happens when it gets hit by a blast or a flamer?

Silly GW releasing models that the rules don't support.

Therion wrote:You must understand you're going to get a heated response from people if you make them feel they are being tagged cheaters for being absolutely bona fide about their opinions and the way they play the game.

I encourage you to re-read my posts and check whether I called anyone a cheater. I said a particular action would not fly with a TO. I didn't say the person who tried it is a bad person. Enhance your calm.

I'm sure people are bona fide and sincerely think they're playing by the rules while actually breaking said rules all the time. It happens frequently. It's called a mistake, or inadvertent cheating, rather than intentional. Like the guys who think the base is what matters for measuring to/from their Vendetta or SR. I played a BA player last week and had to correct him on this. Totally nice guy. He didn't realize he was breaking the rules by measuring 24" onto the table coming out of reserves and putting the BASE at the 24" line. But he was breaking the rules.

Therion wrote:The fact that you even brought up whether you would kick me out of your tournament or not was already enough of an insult for me to question why you would ever even consider such a thing in a case like this.

Well, then you weren't reading the thread closely, and flew off the handle because you misread what was written. I (twice) said a TO would not allow it. ArtfcllyFlvrd THEN said HE would throw you out of a tournament. And then I said I would NOT throw you out of a tournament, in response to that, and he retracted his statement. If you paid a little closer attention, you wouldn't embarass yourself by looking like a hothead.

Therion wrote:I stand by my statements (which were addressed to both of you collectively instead of just one person). Whether ArtfcllyFlvrd plays IG or not is largely irrelevant just like it's irrelevant that I don't play IG actively. To me it was obvious that a rule that doesn't exist was being enforced in this thread and anyone who disagreed with it was being labeled an immoral cheater.

Come on. You overreacted, plain and simple. You raised the subject that you don't personally play IG, to forestall accusations that you're arguing your position for personal advantage. And then YOU leveled charges that other people were arguing their position out of selfish and dishonest motives. A move which backfired when ArtfcllyFlvrd reminded you (he had already said it just prior to your making that foolish argument) that he personally DOES use Vendettas. Don't attack other people then accuse them of being aggressive.

To me it is obvious that any kind of modification of a model to gain a substantive game advantage is Modeling for Advantage, and a shady move. Whether modifying the model to do this is a necessity or whether it actually can be done without making physical alterations is still an open question, so your flying off the handle and claiming "it is obvious that a rule that doesn't exist was being enforced" is premature and silly. At least one poster (ArtfcllyFlvrd) who DOES own and regularly use the models is extremely incredulous about the possibility of doing it without altering the model or base.

Illumini wrote:The much worse issue with the vendetta is: Can stuff move under it's wings/can it move over other stuff...

The skimmer rules clearly state that it may not end its move over other units (which includes the wings and tail). Unfortunately, there is no prohibition on another unit moving under it.

Illumini wrote:... and if you allow both/either of these, what happens when it gets hit by a blast or a flamer?

It hits everything underneath the marker/template. Just as normal. The only exception to that is multi-level Ruins, which have a special rule.

I encourage you to re-read my posts and check whether I called anyone a cheater. I said a particular action would not fly with a TO. I didn't say the person who tried it is a bad person. Enhance your calm.

Already to begin with I'd suggest you to at once change your patronising tone especially if you are intent on giving other people advice on their skills in debate. Secondly I'd remind you I was talking to both of you simultaneously since you had taken the same aggressive stance and one of you was labeling me a cheater. I don't need to encourage you to re-read the thread, do I?

I'm sure people are bona fide and sincerely think they're playing by the rules while actually breaking said rules all the time. It happens frequently. It's called a mistake, or inadvertent cheating, rather than intentional.

In this case it's intentional allright. We all see the rules and what you're saying is there isn't there. Why it's bona fide is because if it wasn't for this thread I wouldn't have even thought about the possibility that someone could object to more angled Valkyries.

If you paid a little closer attention, you wouldn't embarass yourself by looking like a hothead.

This wouldn't even deserve a reply. More condemnation to people who defend the interpretation that the rulebook supports. It's not even a RAW vs RAI issue. You're simply making stuff up. You suggest that it is somehow outrageous and hotheaded to question the motives of TOs who either kick players while labeling them cheaters or just enforce a house rule on the spot, both without any clear reasoning given so far except your subjective opinion. The other TO goes further and vetoes simply because he thinks IG are good enough.

Come on. You overreacted, plain and simple. You raised the subject that you don't personally play IG, to forestall accusations that you're arguing your position for personal advantage.

I raised it in defence of your attempt to label me mr. shallow and mr. hateful and because of your suggestion that I have this opinion because I'm a WAAC player. You suggested I care more about winning or cadging a minor game advantage than I do about obeying the rules. After I questioned yours and your buddy's motives you decided to go personal and assume quite a lot. All of this you did without quoting a single rule that supports your stance and now you're very insulted and feel like you need to discuss who overreacted, who embarassed himself and who didn't? Please.

Valk Std Angle:


Valk, most extreme angle with some semblance of stability and no cutting.


Std Angle valk is just under 11" Tail to nose.

Extreme Angle is still just under 9.5"; this is because the bottom Tail Stabilizers stick out and any more of a downward angle would have the Valk fall off the Stand.

If it were glued you could have it Point at a 45* Angle, which would put your weapons out of a firing angle(it is a total 45* up/down per the BRB) and still have a 7.25" front-to-back length.

BTW, the "extreme angle shot still gives you a 20* from mount upward swivel to level, this means you can still shoot straight forward and ever so slightly above.

Seriously? I didn't label you as shallow or hateful. I addressed you as "Mr. 'shallow' and 'hate'" as a direct reference to your using those exact words to describe the motivations you were attributing to the other side. I was making you take responsibility for your words.

My post about "cadging a game advantage" was an obvious parody/rephrase of your accusatory and defamatory statement by making an identical echo of YOUR words in the reverse. I was obviously attempting to illustrate that it was a poor argument, and that you wouldn't like it if I argued that way, so you shouldn't either. And then I pointed out that that's what I was doing, and that it was hurtful, rude and inappropriate, in the very next line.

If you are incapable of recognizing rhetoric aimed at addressing and pointing out to you your own inappropriate language and aggressive phrasing, I don't know what to tell you.

I referenced the rules in question, and we are both very well aware of them. You can't modify the model or base for a game advantage. You publicly changed your stance between your first post in the thread (in which you said the modification would be "hardly" any modification at all) and your later ones (in which you changed your stance to claim that there would be no actual modification required; just an angled positioning on the stand).

I clearly stated that any actual modification of the model or base would be illegal, and agreed with you that it could be legit and legal if mounting the model at a sufficient angle could be managed without physical modification, and yet you continue to rant, and are unwilling or unable to let the matter rest while we await photographic or physical evidence.

Edit: Thanks to Kel, we now have the evidence I have been expecting. Without gluing it to the base, you cannot even come anywhere close to pulling this trick off. Even hard-gluing it at a 45 degree angle, you're still 7.25" long. It's not possible without physical modification, just as I suspected and as ArtfcllyFlvrd said.

I'm sure you were arguing your position sincerely. I'm sure you were honest and not intentionally advocating the breaking of a rule. But in point of fact you were advocating for an act which would actually be a violation of the rules. I like you. You're a tactical badass, who usually knows what he's talking about, and has an aggressive internet personality which can make it intimidating for some folks to argue with you. But you were mistaken on this and you got called on that mistake.

cool....

Since 2009, I been playing it that you can outflank and move 6 and fire all 3 las cannons as the reference point was the base for movement and this is how it was played against me by other guard players.

FAQ changes things a bit having to start on the board and scout turbo vendettas so they get cover or if you have to outflank in table corners missions you have to move > 6 and just fire one las cannon.

I heard a rumor they were giving the dark eldar move 12 and shoot rule to all the quote fliers with the summer of fliers expansion which would be rolled into 6th edition so outflanking and shooting might be still legal.

I referenced the rules in question, and we are both very well aware of them. You can't modify the model or base for a game advantage. You publicly changed your stance between your first post in the thread (in which you said the modification would be "hardly" any modification at all) and your later ones (in which you changed your stance to claim that there would be no actual modification required; just an angled positioning on the stand).

You've got to be kidding me. "Publicly changed my stance". I entered the discussion because I saw it as a clear cut case. During the discussion I had to go through the rules in order to see if the opposing argument would hold any water and during this process I refined my opinion. Yours still has no basis in rules.

I clearly stated that any actual modification of the model or base would be illegal, and agreed with you that it could be legit and legal if mounting the model at a sufficient angle could be managed without physical modification, and yet you continue to rant, and are unwilling or unable to let the matter rest while we await photopgraphic or physical evidence.

I continue to rant? You might want to check again. To me it seems like you're looking for vindication, a moral victory, an admission of defeat or an apology. None of which you'll get. I could expect the same from you two but I'm not that naive. Now don't get insulted by this because I like you too. I simply won't admit of being wrong or getting called out for it at any point like you suggest in your last edit.

Now, as Kel pointed out, gluing the Valkyrie in an angle steep enough to allow it to fit inside 6" would be mostly counter-productive as the guns wouldn't have line of sight to practically anything. Thanks to Kel for taking the time to take the pictures and measurements. A few things result from this:

a) By your standards, is it modeling for advantage because clearly there is a huge disadvantage in it?
b) By my standards what the pictures show is that a very steep angle is possible while easily staying within the framework of the rules. The fact that the Valkyrie is still over 7" long doesn't make me wrong in any way. Additionally, the fact that the lascannons lose line of sight was an unfortunate side-effect that I didn't expect. I also assumed that Kel's 'extreme angle' or a bit more would have been enough to fit to the table but by his measurements the Valkyrie is still too long. Now I can't see any reason why someone would angle it to fit inside 6" regardless of it quite possibly being legal (either because it's acceptable modeling or because it's modeling for disadvantage).

Yes, I call it ranting when you go on and on in an angry fashion, blindly losing sight of the fact that what you perceived as and are reacting to as "insults" were merely rhetorical devices/attempts to point out to you your own offensive choice of words. I don't need a concession from you. I don't expect one either. If you think you can physically modify a model to gain a game advantage and that people will let you get away with it, have a party. Enjoy.

Kel pointed out that even if you glue it at a 45 degree angle, it's still 7.5" long when viewed from above. So it's still not possible. If you went ahead and glued the thing on there nose-down at like a 60+ degree angle (which is what ArtfcllyFlvrd estimated off hand two pages ago)...

I'm not sure what I'd say. It'd look so silly and unnatural (and as you say, impair its LOS so much) that I don't expect to ever encounter that situation.

that I don't expect to ever encounter that situation.

Naturally you and I and even sourclams were all discussing from a theoretical position. None of us had the model on our hands and none of us could say how steep an angle would be required and whether the guns would still have line of sight or not. My position was based on the fact that in principle I can't see anything against the rules in angling the Valkyrie and it felt like you were against any sort of adaptation untill very late in the thread.

Sure. You and I were both firmly convinced early on of our positions, based on our differing recollections of the size of the model and possible angles of affixation to the base.

I thought (and turned out to be correct) that it would require physical modification, not merely repositioning/legal angling.

Mannahnin wrote:Sure. You and I were both firmly convinced early on of our positions, based on our differing recollections of the size of the model and possible angles of affixation to the base.

I thought (and turned out to be correct) that it would require physical modification, not merely repositioning/legal angling.

That hasn't been proven so you didn't turn out to be correct in one bit (glue isn't a physical modification of any kind to the base as bases are commongly glued to models). All that we discovered from the pictures is that there is a huge disadvantage to gluing the Valkyrie to an enormously steep angle and if anything that only reinforces my position because it's not even an advantage anymore. Your whole argument was based on the whole MfA convention.

Seriously, this is a LAME argument guys. Stop slugging it out, agree to disagree on this matter.

As shown from the pictures, you just can't get it to be less than 6" by angling it, any more angled and it would look dumb. So, if you wanna use the stock model then you can't move on 6" and fire everything.

You want to know the answer? "Counts As". Go find some <6" long toy-army helicopter or transport plane, or whatever. Counts as is completely in the rules. I suspect no one would ever notice it's shorter than a Valk if the 'rule of cool' covered it up well enough.

Personally, I expect in the 6th edition, that vehicles on bases will count their bases as their hulls to avoid this sort of nonsense!

Personally, I expect in the 6th edition, that vehicles on bases will count their bases as their hulls to avoid this sort of nonsense!

Either that or there will be a flyer category with more specific rules.

Therion wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Sure. You and I were both firmly convinced early on of our positions, based on our differing recollections of the size of the model and possible angles of affixation to the base.

I thought (and turned out to be correct) that it would require physical modification, not merely repositioning/legal angling.

That hasn't been proven so you didn't turn out to be correct in one bit (glue isn't a physical modification of any kind to the base as bases are commongly glued to models). All that we discovered from the pictures is that there is a huge disadvantage to gluing the Valkyrie to an enormously steep angle and if anything that only reinforces my position because it's not even an advantage anymore. Your whole argument was based on the whole MfA convention.

As Kel already told us, the farthest he could get it to go/physically fit together with glue is 45 degrees. So you'd have to cut the base or model to get a sharper angle.

Go ahead and cut it, then get a wad of plastic epoxy to melt your base's top and model's bottom together so you can get it to stay on while pointed nose-down at a 60+ degree angle. Enjoy the heck out of that. Keep telling yourself it's not a physical modification, and I'm sure no one will say anything.

Enjoy the heck out of that. Keep telling yourself it's not a physical modification, and I'm sure no one will say anything.

If someone would in fact model his guns facing the ground giving the lascannons an inch or two total in range I'm sure TOs couldn't really invoke the MfA on that guy now could they?

Mannahnin wrote:As Kel already told us, the farthest he could get it to go/physically fit together with glue is 45 degrees. So you'd have to cut the base or model to get a sharper angle.

Sorry one small Correction; I put the Glue-together requirement to the 45* because that was what sourclams had suggested.

You could glue it at a 60* without much of a problem(less of one if you used the back of the flights stand; actually there you could get a 68* downward angle) ; however @ 60*, the Sensor bar actually touches the Base. Also once you get to 60* you are just under 6" from tip-to-tip(about 58 or 59* will be exactly 6")

Of course again such an extreme angle would disallow any shooting beyond about 2" from the base.

I love my protractor.

You could glue it at a 60* without much of a problem(less of one if you used the back of the flights stand; actually there you could get a 68* downward angle) ; however @ 60*, the Sensor bar actually touches the Base. Also once you get to 60* you are just under 6" from tip-to-tip(about 58 or 59* will be exactly 6")

Of course again such an extreme angle would disallow any shooting beyond about 2" from the base.

Thank you for the clarification.

Ah, the Zen of helping without actually helping anyone.

Ah, the Zen of helping without actually helping anyone.

You've no idea how much it'll help me if I can actually get away from this discussion and do some work.

Thanks again, Kel. I really appreciate it.

Therion- Go do your work! No doubt I'm participating with such fervor in part because I'm procrastinating too.

Allright. Tomorrow I'll go buy a Valkyrie and glue it to a 60" angle just because it doesn't require any physical modification. Then I'll shoot a lascannon at anyone who gets under the nose of my plane just because I can. It'll be sweet.

Go get 'em, Tiger. You rule.

I read alot of the posts but not all if this was covered ignore me... y are you guys complaining? Yes they can get shot down easy but what are your other anti tank theres Melta vets in a chimera 155pts for a 12" gun that moves 12 a turn and 6 to shoot then the have weaker armor. Tanks with scatter and 1 shot with them at 150+ points? I think it's clear cut vendetta is your best option. I'd rather pay the 30extrA anyday no contest


As for the hanging off the edge for scatter my battle group always plays center on the model good center off the map bad is that so hard?

Neroku wrote:As for the hanging off the edge for scatter my battle group always plays center on the model good center off the map bad is that so hard?

As long as the entire model's over the table (no wings or tail or anything hanging over empty space) you're all good.

Neroku wrote:I read alot of the posts but not all if this was covered ignore me... y are you guys complaining? Yes they can get shot down easy but what are your other anti tank theres Melta vets in a chimera 155pts for a 12" gun that moves 12 a turn and 6 to shoot then the have weaker armor. Tanks with scatter and 1 shot with them at 150+ points? I think it's clear cut vendetta is your best option. I'd rather pay the 30extrA anyday no contest

What other anti-tank do the Guard have? Seriously? Okay, here goes, in no particular order...

Company command squad (Lascannons, melta)
Psyker Battle Squads (Soulstorm)
Storm Troopers (Meltacide)
Marbo (Demo charge, melta bombs, lol sniper pistol)
Infantry Squads/Platoon Commands (Lascannons, melta)
Special Weapon Squads (Melta, demo charges)
Heavy Weapons Squads (More lascannons!)
Veterans (Lascannons, melta, demovets meltabombing/demo charging)
Penal Legion (Rending tank-stabbing lulz)
Chimeras (HK missiles)
Sentinels (Lascannons again!)
Rough Riders (Hunting lances, melta, krak grenades)
Hellhounds/Bane Wolves (Hull multi-melta)
Devil Dogs (Melta cannon)
Leman Russes (Lascannons, battle cannon, multi-melta sponsons, demolisher cannons, Vanquisher battle cannons)
Basilisks
Medusas
Manticores (Dear god I love these things for killing armour)
Deathstrikes (Lawl)

So yeah, okay not all of them are equally GOOD at killing tanks, but dear sweet jesus that's a whole lot of anti-tank options in the guard codex, and MAN can we take Lascannons in alot of places that aren't Vendettas.

Yeah, we're fine for anti-tank, EVEN without Vendettas.

Edit: Removed the Colossus. It's kinda a long-shot as anti-tank.

Thats not how we play lol as long as the base is on the table rest of the model doesnt matter as long as its Gw base and model per the rules.

Neroku wrote:Thats not how we play lol as long as the base is on the table rest of the model doesnt matter as long as its Gw base and model per the rules.

This is a fairly common mistake, but is definitely a violation of the rules.

The rules for vehicles (see page 56) tell us that when measuring distances to and from vehicles (determining where the model is), we measure to its hull/body. The rules for skimmers on page 71 also clearly tell us the same measuring distances, and that the skimmer's base is ignored for all purposes except assault (enemy units can also assault the base if they can't reach the hull; though assaulting a vehicle's hull is what you normally do). The IG FAQ (linked below) also adds that for embarking or disembarking, or contesting objectives, you also may measure from the base for a Valkyrie or Vendetta, since they are so tall.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490293a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf

But for all other purposes, as with ALL vehicles, you measure to and from the hull- the body of the vehicle.

The main rulebook FAQ clearly states that models may not move (that means any part of them) off the table, as "All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!" (page 1). It also states that any model which fails to move completely onto the table from Reserve is destroyed (page 6).

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620222a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_2.pdf

Hm, maybe a bit off-topic but it concerns modelling for advantage without really modifying the stock models: what if a Marine army has an all-kneeling army with drop pods, so that the tacs can land on objectives and hug cover (from the pods) more efficiently and/or scouts infiltrating on cover (with camo cloaks, of course). It is a sucky list/tactic, but one can plainly see that the pose of the models chosen are there to compliment the army tactic (hugging objectives).

Does it count as modelling for advantage, even though nothing is changed on the models themselves?

starsdawn wrote:Hm, maybe a bit off-topic but it concerns modelling for advantage without really modifying the stock models: what if a Marine army has an all-kneeling army with drop pods, so that the tacs can land on objectives and hug cover (from the pods) more efficiently and/or scouts infiltrating on cover (with camo cloaks, of course). It is a sucky list/tactic, but one can plainly see that the pose of the models chosen are there to compliment the army tactic (hugging objectives).

Does it count as modelling for advantage, even though nothing is changed on the models themselves?

This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Besides, to make whole squads composed of kneeling/skulking models, the owner must have spent a fortune collecting models, as for every kneeling figure he will have 9 otherwise normal ones he is not using....so I say if he has spent that much then kudos to him....

I will just rain indirect fire ordnance on the squad anyway...

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

For the marines, you did not actually modify anything..yes you chose the low models, but they are "stock models"..for the vendetta, you actually did something else to force the model to be angled, since a "stock" model is not posed that way...which for me is the difference....

It is a "gray" area for sure, and to be honest would depend on the interpretation of the local group...

I'm going to just throw it out there that similarly to some others that have posted, the TO of a tournament I am participating in next month ruled that so long as the base is on the table, that is sufficient for movement on.

The thoughts behind it were two-fold:
1) This is the only model that is actually negatively affected by this rule in this way in the entire game. The commonly held belief (at least locally) is that it was not designed that way to prevent it shooting all weapons coming in from reserve, but simply to look cool. The feeling is that this rule was brought in for situations like tanks immobilizing on the way in from reserves, and was never intended to discuss skimmers. Again, just a local opinion. They could have just as easily have built it as a wider, less long helicopter and we wouldn't even be having this chat.

2) The base is what matters for all rules items (other than shooting from or to it).

Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

freddieyu1 wrote:

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

For the marines, you did not actually modify anything..yes you chose the low models, but they are "stock models"..for the vendetta, you actually did something else to force the model to be angled, since a "stock" model is not posed that way...which for me is the difference....

It is a "gray" area for sure, and to be honest would depend on the interpretation of the local group...

Well, how would folks in Galleria and/or RHGC interpret it?

No, I'm not trying to use it. I'm just curious.

Fearspect wrote:
Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

I know you don't want to debate it, but there is no debate to be had. If you're not counting the wings/tail as the hull, you're not playing the game correctly.

You can say that you see it two different ways, but one way is wrong. This is one of the few issues that GW is very clear on. They had skimmers before 5th was introduced. They could have easily said "Skimmer hulls don't count similarly to other vehicle hulls." But they didn't. They also could've modelled the Valkryie differently, but they didn't. Mannanhin has it exactly right - this is a clear cut case. There aren't "two sides of the argument" - there are the people that are playing by the rules, and the people that aren't.

If you're not counting the tail as a part of the hull, then later on in the game, I can't shoot at the tail if I can see it? If I -can- shoot the tail, then it is a part of the hull and it should never be allowed to hang off of the edge. What about Land Raiders? Just because they're huge and can't entirely make it onto the board from reserves, will you just let them hang off the edge?

People can say there is an argument going on, but there isn't. There are the rules (all parts of the Valkyrie are the hull, and the hull is used for all measurement, except for assault, objectives and embarking/disembarking) and then there are house rules (the rules in which you allow your opponent to hang his model off the side of the board - which is giving him a wonderful advantage.)

In that case, can I just bring my Valkyrie 2" onto the board so you can barely target it at all?

puma713 wrote:

Fearspect wrote:
Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

I know you don't want to debate it, but there is no debate to be had. If you're not counting the wings/tail as the hull, you're not playing the game correctly.

You can say that you see it two different ways, but one way is wrong. This is one of the few issues that GW is very clear on. They had skimmers before 5th was introduced. They could have easily said "Skimmer hulls don't count similarly to other vehicle hulls." But they didn't. They also could've modelled the Valkryie differently, but they didn't. Mannanhin has it exactly right - this is a clear cut case. There aren't "two sides of the argument" - there are the people that are playing by the rules, and the people that aren't.

If you're not counting the tail as a part of the hull, then later on in the game, I can't shoot at the tail if I can see it? If I -can- shoot the tail, then it is a part of the hull and it should never be allowed to hang off of the edge. What about Land Raiders? Just because they're huge and can't entirely make it onto the board from reserves, will you just let them hang off the edge?

People can say there is an argument going on, but there isn't. There are the rules (all parts of the Valkyrie are the hull, and the hull is used for all measurement, except for assault, objectives and embarking/disembarking) and then there are house rules (the rules in which you allow your opponent to hang his model off the side of the board - which is giving him a wonderful advantage.)

In that case, can I just bring my Valkyrie 2" onto the board so you can barely target it at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage

Fearspect wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Fearspect wrote:
Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

I know you don't want to debate it, but there is no debate to be had. If you're not counting the wings/tail as the hull, you're not playing the game correctly.

You can say that you see it two different ways, but one way is wrong. This is one of the few issues that GW is very clear on. They had skimmers before 5th was introduced. They could have easily said "Skimmer hulls don't count similarly to other vehicle hulls." But they didn't. They also could've modelled the Valkryie differently, but they didn't. Mannanhin has it exactly right - this is a clear cut case. There aren't "two sides of the argument" - there are the people that are playing by the rules, and the people that aren't.

If you're not counting the tail as a part of the hull, then later on in the game, I can't shoot at the tail if I can see it? If I -can- shoot the tail, then it is a part of the hull and it should never be allowed to hang off of the edge. What about Land Raiders? Just because they're huge and can't entirely make it onto the board from reserves, will you just let them hang off the edge?

People can say there is an argument going on, but there isn't. There are the rules (all parts of the Valkyrie are the hull, and the hull is used for all measurement, except for assault, objectives and embarking/disembarking) and then there are house rules (the rules in which you allow your opponent to hang his model off the side of the board - which is giving him a wonderful advantage.)

In that case, can I just bring my Valkyrie 2" onto the board so you can barely target it at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage

Are you trying to claim that if I shoot off the rudders of an aircraft it'll just fly on merrily as if nothing happened?

I think he's trying to explain you what the hull actually is, but I could be wrong since I haven't followed this discussion anymore.

Fearspect wrote:I'm going to just throw it out there that similarly to some others that have posted, the TO of a tournament I am participating in next month ruled that so long as the base is on the table, that is sufficient for movement on.

The thoughts behind it were two-fold:
1) This is the only model that is actually negatively affected by this rule in this way in the entire game. The commonly held belief (at least locally) is that it was not designed that way to prevent it shooting all weapons coming in from reserve, but simply to look cool. The feeling is that this rule was brought in for situations like tanks immobilizing on the way in from reserves, and was never intended to discuss skimmers. Again, just a local opinion. They could have just as easily have built it as a wider, less long helicopter and we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Not true. Land Raiders and monolithes are technically affected as well for the same principle (parts of the model hanging over the table edge).

That rule also screws over 40mm+ sized models when dealing with difficult terrain rolls but that's another matter entirely.

"Hull" is clearly defined in the BRB, the only things on the Valk model that is not targetable/ doesn't "take up space" is the Aerial on the nose, and any Lascannon barrels that stick out from the wings(on the Vendetta) Everything else falls under the BRB definition of "Hull".

Starsdawn; consensus on angling has already been reached: So long as nothing is cut or altered it is not MFA. Also, until you get to the extreme angles of 60*+ your Valk/Vendetta will still be more than 6" long, and when you do reach the extreme angle you have a 2" range LOS in front of your model.

It can be done, but you lose the exact benefit you were looking for.

I guess the best way to frame my thinking would be:

If the size of the plane was a design such that it could not come in under 6" from reserve (along with why its wings cannot be over other models), why didn't they provide a base shaped exactly like the plane from a top-down view? Or, at the very least, provided a dinner plate shaped base to represent it on the battlefield in this manner?

Um, GW likes std size bases?

Also the skimmer rules distinguish between the Base and "hull", and the base is used for very little.

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

For the marines, you did not actually modify anything..yes you chose the low models, but they are "stock models"..for the vendetta, you actually did something else to force the model to be angled, since a "stock" model is not posed that way...which for me is the difference....

It is a "gray" area for sure, and to be honest would depend on the interpretation of the local group...

Well, how would folks in Galleria and/or RHGC interpret it?

No, I'm not trying to use it. I'm just curious.

Similar to what I have posted....and since I have a "say" when it comes to our local group (meaning RHGC) that is how I will argue for it...

Kommissar Kel wrote:Um, GW likes std size bases?

Also the skimmer rules distinguish between the Base and "hull", and the base is used for very little.

This.

Eldar grav tanks have been four times (or so) the surface area of their bases since they first came out in the 90s. They've always used the hull/body of the tank for entering the table and for difficult terrain. The Valk/Vend/SR are no different, for most purposes (except the specific exceptions GW gave them to deal with their height). Just bigger.

According to GW, flyers are ok if they stick over the edge of the table, as long as the base is completely on the table. I was down warhammer world and had a chat with a bunch of peeps. If you want 'official GW' I might be able to get that too but it will take a few months as i don't see people from the design team much.

If you know anyone who can change the FAQ, feel free to talk to them. I'm going to continue playing Valks/Vend/SRs exactly the same way I've been playing Falcons and Wave Serpents and every other skimmer for over a decade.

Right now the FAQ clearly says the whole model has to get onto the table, and that the edge of the table is the end of the world, so no unit or model can overlap it. For skimmers, the base is never the whole model. The base is almost totally irrelevant. The only times it is used at all is when sheer height prevents the hull from being properly used as it's supposed to be. In all other cases, the model's body is all that matters. It's been that way at least since 3rd came out in 1998. Maybe longer.