Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's the question, I personally feel it's fairly cut and dry, but posting it for the sake of other opinions. Please note: I only want RAW, not any homebrew rules/"how i'd play it" or other similar

When you produce a "vehicle destroyed - explodes" result on a model on a flight stand (valkyries, stormravens) what is the size of the resulting crater.

My understanding is to follow the FAQ for the core rulebook, page 4, which states you replace the vehicle with a "similar sized crater" (page 4, right hand column). The crater is the size of the vehicles hull, ergo, the crater is the size of the stormraven.

This came up at a recent event, and the judge was claiming "the crater is the size of the oval base". He however could not cite a relevant rule entry to support this.

Let's here it dakkanauts!

If you're looking for a rule that sates "X vehicle leaves a Y sized crater", or "B category of vehicles leave C size craters", you're not going to find any.

BGB pg. 3, MEASURING DISTANCES wrote: A model is considered to occupy the area of it's base.....

BGB FAQ wrote:Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.
Q: If a skimmer on a large oval flying base is wrecked,
and its base is completely surrounded by enemy
models, are all embarked models killed? (p71)
A: Yes.
Q: Can you ram a skimmer on a large oval flying base?
(p71)
A: Yes, you have to make contact with either the base
or the hull.

The above quotes are enough justification for the TO to make the ruling he did, IMHO.

Lordhat wrote:If you're looking for a rule that sates "X vehicle leaves a Y sized crater", or "B category of vehicles leave C size craters", you're not going to find any.

BGB pg. 3, MEASURING DISTANCES wrote: A model is considered to occupy the area of it's base.....

BGB FAQ wrote:Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.
Q: If a skimmer on a large oval flying base is wrecked,
and its base is completely surrounded by enemy
models, are all embarked models killed? (p71)
A: Yes.
Q: Can you ram a skimmer on a large oval flying base?
(p71)
A: Yes, you have to make contact with either the base
or the hull.

The above quotes are enough justification for the TO to make the ruling he did, IMHO.

The things you quoted have nothing to do with the explodes result, or with the size of the crater. There are many instances that you use the base of the vehicle, yes, but this is not one of them.

And the quote you referenced from PG3 is refering to infantry models. If not, what size crater would I use for a falcon? Falcons have bases, they use the flying base. So when one wrecks, you place a piece of difficult terrain the size of a flight stand (less than a 3 inch diameter circle)?

Here's the relevant passages from the FAQ:

"Q: Are a vehicles wings considered to be part of it's hull?
A: Yes"

So the entire structure is hull

and on the same page, at the end, right column:

"Q:When a vehicle is destroyed by a Destroyed –
Explodes! result on the Vehicle Damage table you
replace the vehicle with a similar sized area of difficult
ground. What, if any, cover save does this area of
difficult ground confer? (p61)
A: It will confer a 4+ cover save to any eligible unit"

Is the vehicle the base? No, the vehicle is the model, which would be the hull (excluding any protruding fiddly bits that aren't hull)

Honestly the ruling could go either way. Targetawg has a correct rule interpretation.......but because of the FAQ so does Lordhat.

Looks like it's one of GWs "well you're both correct" bit. But since the TO trumps in tourneys, that's the way to play it in that instance.

I don't have my BRB with me. Aren't there rules for where to place models in a transport that explodes? I thought the rule was you place models anywhere where the hull was. Since the wings are part of the hull, it would make sense to use a paper cut-out of the Stormraven as a crater.

Nungunz wrote:Honestly the ruling could go either way. Targetawg has a correct rule interpretation.......but because of the FAQ so does Lordhat.

Looks like it's one of GWs "well you're both correct" bit. But since the TO trumps in tourneys, that's the way to play it in that instance.

All of his FAQ quotes were irrelevant to this discussion, as they don't pertain to the topic at hand. We all know that the base is used for many purposes, this however, is not one of them according to the rules. I'll stand corrected if someone can find a rules reference that relates the size of the base to the explodes result, the size of the resultant crater, etc.

The rules actually make more sense if you read the sections they refer to in the main rules.

The FAQs are to clarify - they do not add.

Which is to say, you are both right - "similar sized" is not in the rules, and it is hard to say the area of the skimmer is not "similar" to the area of the oval. Sure, the shape may be different.

Also, it is fine to rule a number of ways, as the text says "replace with an area of difficult ground. . .or a crater (if you have one)".

So you can use an area (of similar size) of terrain OR a crater - and GW sells craters. The other way to read it there is also the option to do neither, but that seems odd.

kirsanth wrote:The rules actually make more sense if you read the sections they refer to in the main rules.

The FAQs are to clarify - they do not add.

Which is to say, you are both right - "similar sized" is not in the rules, and it is hard to say the area of the skimmer is not "similar" to the area of the oval. Sure, the shape may be different.

Also, it is fine to rule a number of ways, as the text says "replace with an area of difficult ground. . .or a crater (if you have one)".

So you can use an area (of similar size) of terrain OR a crater - and GW sells craters. The other way to read it there is also the option to do neither, but that seems odd.

The phrase "of similar size" is a clarification to the original "terrain or crater" statement written in the rulebook. It's not an addition.

And the area of the oval is far different from the area of the outline of the vehicles hull. And yes, I realize you mean area in the strict sense, the two are very different in terms of the magnitude of the area. The hull is somewhere in the neigborhood of 3x the area of the oval. Similar to how different the flight stand of a falcon has a different area to the falcon itself. Would we just replace the falcon with a crater the size of the stand?

In the strictest sense, I would accept your premise that as long as the crater is of similar area, it would be suitable. Mind you this seems very nonsensical and more trouble than it's worth since you need to calculate the area of each, but, as you say, the shape isn't dictated. Then again, if we follow this logic, I could make a 1 inch wide pathway of "difficult terrain" that is the same area, even though it's several feet long and lets me deploy across the board. The simpler solution would be to use the same area, and shape, of the vehicle.

But there is no support to using the oval of the flying base. No where do the rules state this is the case. Choosing to use the oval is a complete homebrew, not a ruling based on the rules. (Unless of course you use an oval that is the same area, but this once again wouldn't be the flight base)

targetawg wrote:The hull is somewhere in the neigborhood of 3x the area of the oval.

I question this assertion.

Simply from personal ignorance.

targetawg wrote:The phrase "of similar size" is a clarification to the original "terrain or crater" statement written in the rulebook.

The crater is sold by GW. It does not need to be similar to anything. You are misreading the "or" otherwise you have the option of simply not placing either.

targetawg wrote:

The phrase "of similar size" is a clarification to the original "terrain or crater" statement written in the rulebook. It's not an addition.

And the area of the oval is far different from the area of the outline of the vehicles hull. And yes, I realize you mean area in the strict sense, the two are very different in terms of the magnitude of the area. The hull is somewhere in the neigborhood of 3x the area of the oval. Similar to how different the flight stand of a falcon has a different area to the falcon itself. Would we just replace the falcon with a crater the size of the stand?

In the strictest sense, I would accept your premise that as long as the crater is of similar area, it would be suitable. Mind you this seems very nonsensical and more trouble than it's worth since you need to calculate the area of each, but, as you say, the shape isn't dictated. Then again, if we follow this logic, I could make a 1 inch wide pathway of "difficult terrain" that is the same area, even though it's several feet long and lets me deploy across the board. The simpler solution would be to use the same area, and shape, of the vehicle.

But there is no support to using the oval of the flying base. No where do the rules state this is the case. Choosing to use the oval is a complete homebrew, not a ruling based on the rules. (Unless of course you use an oval that is the same area, but this once again wouldn't be the flight base)

'Of similar size' to WHAT is the question you're asking. And the reason you got the ruling you did is that there's lots of precedent that seems to indicate that the size of the BASE is what's important for models on a flight stand, NOT the size of the model itself. The line that says "A model is considered to occupy the area of it's base" is a particularly strong argument here; if that's the area the model occupies (and it is), then that should be the area of the crater. Of course, this conflicts with all the OTHER indications that what matters for vehicles is the size of the hull, so RAW, there isn't a clear answer to this question.

I, personally, would place a crater as large as the vehicle itself, but it could easily be argued the other way.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

targetawg wrote:

The phrase "of similar size" is a clarification to the original "terrain or crater" statement written in the rulebook. It's not an addition.

And the area of the oval is far different from the area of the outline of the vehicles hull. And yes, I realize you mean area in the strict sense, the two are very different in terms of the magnitude of the area. The hull is somewhere in the neigborhood of 3x the area of the oval. Similar to how different the flight stand of a falcon has a different area to the falcon itself. Would we just replace the falcon with a crater the size of the stand?

In the strictest sense, I would accept your premise that as long as the crater is of similar area, it would be suitable. Mind you this seems very nonsensical and more trouble than it's worth since you need to calculate the area of each, but, as you say, the shape isn't dictated. Then again, if we follow this logic, I could make a 1 inch wide pathway of "difficult terrain" that is the same area, even though it's several feet long and lets me deploy across the board. The simpler solution would be to use the same area, and shape, of the vehicle.

But there is no support to using the oval of the flying base. No where do the rules state this is the case. Choosing to use the oval is a complete homebrew, not a ruling based on the rules. (Unless of course you use an oval that is the same area, but this once again wouldn't be the flight base)

'Of similar size' to WHAT is the question you're asking. And the reason you got the ruling you did is that there's lots of precedent that seems to indicate that the size of the BASE is what's important for models on a flight stand, NOT the size of the model itself. The line that says "A model is considered to occupy the area of it's base" is a particularly strong argument here; if that's the area the model occupies (and it is), then that should be the area of the crater. Of course, this conflicts with all the OTHER indications that what matters for vehicles is the size of the hull, so RAW, there isn't a clear answer to this question.

I, personally, would place a crater as large as the vehicle itself, but it could easily be argued the other way.

"Of similar size to what"

This is actually specifically stated:

When a vehicle is destroyed by a Destroyed –
Explodes! result on the Vehicle Damage table you
replace the vehicle with a similar sized area of difficult
ground.

Replace the vehicle with a similar sized

IE, similar sized to the vehicle

The vehicle is the model, a model may occupy the area of it's base, but the base isn't the vehicle. And when you replace the stormraven vehicle with a similar sized crater...it's similar to the vehicle, not to the vehicles base.

The page 3 quote is out of context, and is there to solve situations like moving under the stormraven to contact it's base for assaulting, not for how big the model is itself.

How many people bring a crater the size of their storm raven or their vendettas to game night with them? <--- Honest question.

I have some card-stock cut-outs that are roughly the size of rhinos and land raiders that I bring with me when I play. Not great looking, but at least they're the right size.

Does anyone else do that?

targetawg wrote:

"Of similar size to what"

This is actually specifically stated:

When a vehicle is destroyed by a Destroyed –
Explodes! result on the Vehicle Damage table you
replace the vehicle with a similar sized area of difficult
ground.

Replace the vehicle with a similar sized

IE, similar sized to the vehicle

The vehicle is the model, a model may occupy the area of it's base, but the base isn't the vehicle. And when you replace the stormraven vehicle with a similar sized crater...it's similar to the vehicle, not to the vehicles base.

The page 3 quote is out of context, and is there to solve situations like moving under the stormraven to contact it's base for assaulting, not for how big the model is itself.

The vehicle occupies a certain amount of space on the table. When the vehicle doesn't have a base (that is, when it's any non-walker vehicle not on a flying stand), you use the hull instead of the base.

But this vehicle DOES have a base. And the size of the base is the space that the vehicle occupies on the table. There is JUST as much RAW justification for placing a crater that size as there is for placing a crater the size of the hull.

As I said, I don't play it that way, but that's down to my personal preference, not because the rules are clear on this issue.

kirsanth wrote:

targetawg wrote:The hull is somewhere in the neigborhood of 3x the area of the oval.

I question this assertion.

Simply from personal ignorance.

targetawg wrote:The phrase "of similar size" is a clarification to the original "terrain or crater" statement written in the rulebook.

The crater is sold by GW. It does not need to be similar to anything. You are misreading the "or" otherwise you have the option of simply not placing either.

- The base is ~ the size of one of the storm ravens wings, just to give you an idea of scale if you don't have a model on hand

- A crater is sold by GW, "the crater" is not, that is just one type of crater. In fact, even gw's pack includes multiple types of craters, vastly different in size, which would you use?

Also, I think it's a bit silly to get caught up on the use of a crater as opposed to another piece of difficult ground. As a crater is a type of difficult ground, it would follow that it too would be under the restriction below to be "similar sized".

When a vehicle is destroyed by a Destroyed –
Explodes! result on the Vehicle Damage table you
replace the vehicle with a similar sized area of difficult
ground. What, if any, cover save does this area of
difficult ground confer? (p61)

targetawg wrote:- The base is ~ the size of one of the storm ravens wings, just to give you an idea of scale if you don't have a model on hand

/shrug

targetawg wrote:Also, I think it's a bit silly to get caught up on the use of a crater as opposed to another piece of difficult ground. As a crater is a type of difficult ground, it would follow that it too would be under the restriction below to be "similar sized".

And I think it is absurd to get caught up in a TO ruling because you disagree with it, but rules are rules.

The fact that they let you use either is a rule.

Technically, since the rule just states that you replace it with "an area of difficult gound representing scattered wreckage or a crater (if you have one)." It can be represented by *any* size piece of difficult ground. Generally, in tournament play I just use extra counters or dice roughing out an area about the size of the vehicle that was destroyed.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

targetawg wrote:

"Of similar size to what"

This is actually specifically stated:

When a vehicle is destroyed by a Destroyed –
Explodes! result on the Vehicle Damage table you
replace the vehicle with a similar sized area of difficult
ground.

Replace the vehicle with a similar sized

IE, similar sized to the vehicle

The vehicle is the model, a model may occupy the area of it's base, but the base isn't the vehicle. And when you replace the stormraven vehicle with a similar sized crater...it's similar to the vehicle, not to the vehicles base.

The page 3 quote is out of context, and is there to solve situations like moving under the stormraven to contact it's base for assaulting, not for how big the model is itself.

The vehicle occupies a certain amount of space on the table. When the vehicle doesn't have a base (that is, when it's any non-walker vehicle not on a flying stand), you use the hull instead of the base.

But this vehicle DOES have a base. And the size of the base is the space that the vehicle occupies on the table. There is JUST as much RAW justification for placing a crater that size as there is for placing a crater the size of the hull.

As I said, I don't play it that way, but that's down to my personal preference, not because the rules are clear on this issue.

The space the vehicle occupies while on the table isn't relevant to the crater, you replace the vehicle (which is the physical model) with a similar sized area of difficult ground, not "an area of difficult ground equal to the space it used to occupy"

Vehicle = stormraven

While on board, the stormraven occupies an area = it's base

When it explodes, you replace the stormraven (subbed in for the word vehicle) with a similar sized area of difficult ground.

Otherwise, and I hate to use it again, you would be stating that it's perfectly legal for a DE Raider or Eldar Falcon to replace itself with an area of difficult ground the size of it's flying stand. Any models that cannot fit inside are killed, yes? Fit 10 warriors on a flight stand. This is the same exact situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

targetawg wrote:- The base is ~ the size of one of the storm ravens wings, just to give you an idea of scale if you don't have a model on hand

/shrug

targetawg wrote:Also, I think it's a bit silly to get caught up on the use of a crater as opposed to another piece of difficult ground. As a crater is a type of difficult ground, it would follow that it too would be under the restriction below to be "similar sized".

And I think it is absurd to get caught up in a TO ruling because you disagree with it, but rules are rules.

The fact that they let you use either is a rule.

I abided by the TO ruling at the event, the TO could rule that my stormraven is BS2 and AV 10, and I'd have to abide by it, as it's his event. The point of YMDC is now for me to determine whether he made a correct ruling.

targetawg wrote:

The space the vehicle occupies while on the table isn't relevant to the crater, you replace the vehicle (which is the physical model) with a similar sized area of difficult ground, not "an area of difficult ground equal to the space it used to occupy"

Vehicle = stormraven

While on board, the stormraven occupies an area = it's base

When it explodes, you replace the stormraven (subbed in for the word vehicle) with a similar sized area of difficult ground.

Otherwise, and I hate to use it again, you would be stating that it's perfectly legal for a DE Raider or Eldar Falcon to replace itself with an area of difficult ground the size of it's flying stand. Any models that cannot fit inside are killed, yes? Fit 10 warriors on a flight stand. This is the same exact situation.

Yep; that is what I'm stating. Or, rather, I'm stating that interpreting the rules that way is just as valid as interpreting them the way I do (and the way I play) is. I don't believe I've ever played against someone who read the rules that way, but upon examination I cannot find anything which particularly disqualifies it.

The vehicle occupies an area. Another word for the area something occupies is the 'size' of that thing.

The vehicle explodes. We replace it with a 'similarly sized' area of difficult ground. Well then, doesn't that mean a crater (or something similar) which has a size nearly that of the vehicle? And isn't the size of the vehicle the same thing as the area it occupies? And isn't that the size of the flying base, according to the BRB?

targetawg wrote:The space the vehicle occupies while on the table isn't relevant to the crater, you replace the vehicle (which is the physical model) with a similar sized area of difficult ground, not "an area of difficult ground equal to the space it used to occupy"

Similar sized area can vary. it is not defined what similar sized area means in the BRB so we have to fall back on the regular definition of it. With that the 'similar sized area' could mean a crater the same shape but ten times smaller or bigger than the vehicle.

The TO made the correct call. it was his tournament and

Lordhat wrote:If you're looking for a rule that sates "X vehicle leaves a Y sized crater", or "B category of vehicles leave C size craters", you're not going to find any.

since there are not any rules that specify how big the crater can be, then you can make it as big or as small as you like, as long as they are similar.

DeathReaper wrote:

targetawg wrote:The space the vehicle occupies while on the table isn't relevant to the crater, you replace the vehicle (which is the physical model) with a similar sized area of difficult ground, not "an area of difficult ground equal to the space it used to occupy"

Similar sized area can vary. it is not defined what similar sized area means in the BRB so we have to fall back on the regular definition of it. With that the 'similar sized area' could mean a crater the same shape but ten times smaller or bigger than the vehicle.

The TO made the correct call. it was his tournament and

Lordhat wrote:If you're looking for a rule that sates "X vehicle leaves a Y sized crater", or "B category of vehicles leave C size craters", you're not going to find any.

since there are not any rules that specify how big the crater can be, then you can make it as big or as small as you like, as long as they are similar.

So since they don't quantitatively define the term "similar" it can be as big or as small as one would like? 10 times different in size would still qualify as "similar"?

Time to bust out my 4'x4' crater and claim it's similar, cover for all!.

You could just not play with craters.... because they're unregulated and f**k with the game big t ime.


In all honesty though a valk or a storm raven shouldn't get a freakin massive crater for the simple fact that enemy models can be under models with large oval flying bases unlike standard skimmers. The fact that you only have to surround the large oval flying base rather than the entire vehicle to cause an embarked unit to be destroyed indicates to me that a crater about the size of the flying base is more logical and would work better and cause fewer issues.

Use dice, it's simpler than putting some ugly ass crater on the board that may or may not even fit.

Let's say a unit of nob bikers surrounds and destroys a storm raven causing it to explode. They had surrounded the large oval flying base and now all the occupents are dead. Are you seriously saying that a foot square size of crater should be placed and now all those nob bikers occupy said crater and now have to take dangerous terrain checks? Lunacy

targetawg wrote:
So since they don't quantitatively define the term "similar" it can be as big or as small as one would like? 10 times different in size would still qualify as "similar"?

Time to bust out my 4'x4' crater and claim it's similar, cover for all!.

If the TO says so, then yes, that's what you can do. You DO know the TO right? He's the guy who says what happens when the rules aren't clear. The same guy who goes through all the trouble of running the tournament, setting pairings collecting results and generally plays god, and has to live with the grief when he makes a ruling. If you don't like his ruling(s) you can stop playing in his tournaments. I'd like to point out that the oval flight stand is pretty damn similar in size to the vehicle(s) it's used for. Is it exact? Nope. But it IS similar.

When you started this Thread, you asked for RAW. Well the RAW, in this case, is entirely made of (drumroll) ambiguous wording. In other words when you wreck a vehicle, "Make some gak up that seems appropriate for both players." You and your opponent were (presumably) unable to come to an agreement, and asked the TO (by whose decisions you've implicitly agreed to abide, by playing in his tournament) he made a call. I posted reasons why his ruling was acceptable and fairly logical.

Also I'd really like to point out that by definition similar does not mean "incorporating all aspects of", it doesn't even mean "incorporating any aspects of". Since the word similar is a wholly subjective term you cannot have a hard and fast ruling in this situation. Quit trying.

targetawg wrote:I abided by the TO ruling at the event, the TO could rule that my stormraven is BS2 and AV 10, and I'd have to abide by it, as it's his event. The point of YMDC is now for me to determine whether he made a correct ruling.

I think you are mis-reading what I am writing.

My point was not that you were upset, or in any way implying that you were anything other than the perfect gentle(wo?)man.

You are/were however, getting caught up in the TOs ruling, or there would be no debate.

I am pointing out that it is 100% reasonable that both sides can be correct, but since you called the TO - the TO is correct.

I do not read the rules as stating anything about the size of the crater - which is not a problem for me because GW does make craters.

Oddly enough, they do not really make "difficult terrain" of any specific size, let alone one similar to each vehicle in the game.

Playing by the rules isn't lunacy.

Berserker wrote:The vehicle occupies an area. Another word for the area something occupies is the 'size' of that thing.

The vehicle explodes. We replace it with a 'similarly sized' area of difficult ground. Well then, doesn't that mean a crater (or something similar) which has a size nearly that of the vehicle? And isn't the size of the vehicle the same thing as the area it occupies? And isn't that the size of the flying base, according to the BRB?

In 40k rules it's pretty commonly accepted (and I think even in the YMDC guidelines) that english/actual definitions of words aren't always equatable. In this case, the space something occupies is indeed it's size/area, because in the real world, that's true, it's just physics. However what you now postulate is that one object, clearly bigger than the other, is the same size. This is where it breaks down.

But, if you want to follow your logic there, you need to apply it consistently, it can't only be a solution for one specific model. So, all models supplied with a base must use it (raw), a model occupies the area of it's base (raw), now we insert your "the size of a vehicle = the size of it's base" because the space something occupies = it's size.

Then we run into an impasse. All skimmers are supplied with bases. So the space a: land speeder storm, falcon, waveserpent, raider, ghost ark, devilfish, etc. occupies is = their base. Place an area of difficult terrain = the base. Disembark your models into it.

BRB Page 67: "The surviving models are placed were the vehicle used to be and then take a pinning test"
"If any models cannot disembark because of of enemies or because they would end up in impassable terrain, the unit can perform an emergency disembarkation - the models are deployed anywhere within 2" of the vehicles hull, but the unit can't do anything else for the rest of the turn, if even this disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark"

So whenever a skimmer explodes, the models must all fit onto the flight stand, or they're forced to emergency disembark? And if they can't do this, they suddenly can be anywhere within 2 inches of the vehicles hull. Seems like they're using the hull there for the space it occupied, not the base...regardless, I'll be informing my skimmer using friends that if they want to use the stormraven/valkyrie base as the crater, then they can do the same for their skimmers.

"Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicles weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmers base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both."

In case there was anyone wondering if the flying base for skimmers is technically a base.

targetawg wrote:In 40k rules it's pretty commonly accepted (and I think even in the YMDC guidelines) that english/actual definitions of words aren't always equatable. In this case, the space something occupies is indeed it's size/area, because in the real world, that's true, it's just physics.

So, you are saying that the word "similar", since it is not defined jargon, should be ignored?

I think you are entirely missing the point of that guideline.

It's really not that complicated. Similar is not exact. Similar is relative. Discuss it with your opponent, come to a decision. Abide by the TO. Make your own Valkyrie/SR sized area terrain. Whatever. This is all the answer you're going to get from the rules.

targetawg wrote:
Then we run into an impasse. All skimmers are supplied with bases. So the space a: land speeder storm, falcon, waveserpent, raider, ghost ark, devilfish, etc. occupies is = their base. Place an area of difficult terrain = the base. Disembark your models into it.

This is the point that convinces me. I'm not going to tell a Dark Eldar/Eldar/Necron player that they have to use their base to place their models. The interpretation is to use the hull for their guys disembarking from a transport that just exploded, so the same interpretation should be used for the Stormraven. Why would a Stormraven or Vendetta be different?

Marshal_Gus wrote:

targetawg wrote:
Then we run into an impasse. All skimmers are supplied with bases. So the space a: land speeder storm, falcon, waveserpent, raider, ghost ark, devilfish, etc. occupies is = their base. Place an area of difficult terrain = the base. Disembark your models into it.

This is the point that convinces me. I'm not going to tell a Dark Eldar/Eldar/Necron player that they have to use their base to place their models. The interpretation is to use the hull for their guys disembarking from a transport that just exploded, so the same interpretation should be used for the Stormraven. Why would a Stormraven or Vendetta be different?

Thank you for convincing me that I'm not completely insane, I was starting to wonder...

Marshal_Gus wrote:

targetawg wrote:
Then we run into an impasse. All skimmers are supplied with bases. So the space a: land speeder storm, falcon, waveserpent, raider, ghost ark, devilfish, etc. occupies is = their base. Place an area of difficult terrain = the base. Disembark your models into it.

This is the point that convinces me. I'm not going to tell a Dark Eldar/Eldar/Necron player that they have to use their base to place their models. The interpretation is to use the hull for their guys disembarking from a transport that just exploded, so the same interpretation should be used for the Stormraven. Why would a Stormraven or Vendetta be different?

This is why we use craters.

You could base the flyer onto a crater. Problem solved.