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.

Because of their size, I believe if you move a Vend/Valk on to the table, part of it may over hang if you only move on 6 inches. Is this legal, or do you have to move so that the tail is over the table as well?


Thanks.

You must move the whole hull of the vehicle onto the table, which means you must move at least cruising speed to get the Valk/Vend in play.

What if I move it 6' and then rotate the model around.

And then I pivot again during shooting phase?

sudojoe wrote:What if I move it 6' and then rotate the model around.

And then I pivot again during shooting phase?

You can't pivot during the shooting phase - only walkers can. (well... as far as vehicles go)

If you can move it 6" on and then rotate so that no part of the vehicle is off the board, you're fine.
It's not possible, however.

Indeed, it is impossible to place the vehicle 6" on so that no part of it hangs over the edge.

sudojoe wrote:What if I move it 6' and then rotate the model around.

And then I pivot again during shooting phase?

Even if pivoted, the minimum distance you need is 9" due to the size.



There is just no way to get it on the board moving 6".

Unit1126PLL wrote:Indeed, it is impossible to place the vehicle 6" on so that no part of it hangs over the edge.

Which is why I modeled mine in a 45 degree banked turn and diving!

Okay not really, but that's about the only way you would be able to do with without cutting off bits of the model.

DoW

IMO you go by the base. If part of the model itself is hanging off that's ok so long as the base is completely on the table you are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IMO you go by the base. If part of the model itself is hanging off that's ok so long as the base is completely on the table you are fine.

The base is used for assault purposes (brb), determining if you are in difficult terrain (FAQ), ramming (FAQ), and (dis)embarking models (FAQ or BRB, forget which).

Pony_law wrote:IMO you go by the base. If part of the model itself is hanging off that's ok so long as the base is completely on the table you are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IMO you go by the base. If part of the model itself is hanging off that's ok so long as the base is completely on the table you are fine.

That's fine for your opinion. It's not what the rules say.

The entire model must move onto the table, if not it's destroyed.

Wouldnt a land raider then have to move cruising speed to be on the table from reserves?

Riddick40k wrote:Wouldnt a land raider then have to move cruising speed to be on the table from reserves?

Only if you do not turn to make it fit on the table.

Thanks for the answers!

grendel083 wrote:

sudojoe wrote:What if I move it 6' and then rotate the model around.

And then I pivot again during shooting phase?

Even if pivoted, the minimum distance you need is 9" due to the size.



There is just no way to get it on the board moving 6".

What if you pivot a full 180 degrees with the tail in the zone and the front of the plane towards the back table edge? My valk's nose is only about 1/2 inch off from the front of the base going vertically up an down. Hrm.. now that I think on it, you'd just count the tail portion so it wouldn't make much difference I suppose. I guess you can always just not include the entire tail assembly in your model or just chop off parts of the tail alerons.

lol. this again..

sorry your tripple twin linked lazcannon gunboat of doom cant come in from reserve and fire everything. too bad. either deploy it, deepstrike it, or move on from an edge fast enough to get on the table and then just fire one of those guns.

this has been debated ad nausem and the rules are pretty clear. the whole vehicle needs to be on. the only time the base is used is for CC, and disembarking (unless you do the drop chute thing), or checking if your in DT and need a check.

sudojoe wrote:What if you pivot a full 180 degrees with the tail in the zone and the front of the plane towards the back table edge? My valk's nose is only about 1/2 inch off from the front of the base going vertically up an down. Hrm.. now that I think on it, you'd just count the tail portion so it wouldn't make much difference I suppose. I guess you can always just not include the entire tail assembly in your model or just chop off parts of the tail alerons.

That's known as 'modelling for advantage'. Not only would your model be banned from all tournaments, you'd also quickly run out of people willing to play you.
It's just one of those things Guard players have to live with. Deploy it on the board, or have less shots on the turn it arrives.

grendel083 wrote:

sudojoe wrote:What if you pivot a full 180 degrees with the tail in the zone and the front of the plane towards the back table edge? My valk's nose is only about 1/2 inch off from the front of the base going vertically up an down. Hrm.. now that I think on it, you'd just count the tail portion so it wouldn't make much difference I suppose. I guess you can always just not include the entire tail assembly in your model or just chop off parts of the tail alerons.

That's known as 'modelling for advantage'. Not only would your model be banned from all tournaments, you'd also quickly run out of people willing to play you.
It's just one of those things Guard players have to live with. Deploy it on the board, or have less shots on the turn it arrives.

Unless you make it look really good... which you probably won't because the Valky is actually a decent model imo.

Long story short, yeah, unless you can answer the question "Why am I drastically altering this model?" with "Because it looks cool!" you're probably wrong..

DoW

I was going to model my valk as a imperial shuttle from star wars with fold up wings. Clearly modeling to my advantage now.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:I was going to model my valk as a imperial shuttle from star wars with fold up wings. Clearly modeling to my advantage now.

Yup, you're a troll.

I wasn't sure at first and I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe you just didn't have any manners and enjoyed a good debate, but clearly I was wrong.

What a shame.

DoW

No, no, no. You came here for a debate. Not a good debate.

Damn, you're right, Happyjew!

Curses...

DoW

So having a model that looks like darth Vader and emprah palpitine (check the gallery) having am imperial shuttle to house the stormtroopers with them is now trolling? Yes yes course it is I see your logic. I answered your question with my opinion of because it looks cool. Yet for answering your question I am troll makes sense. And clearly modeling to my advantage with modeling hinges that go up and down.

DogOfWar wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:I was going to model my valk as a imperial shuttle from star wars with fold up wings. Clearly modeling to my advantage now.

Yup, you're a troll.

I wasn't sure at first and I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe you just didn't have any manners and enjoyed a good debate, but clearly I was wrong.

What a shame.

DoW

No DoW this is trolling.

From The Tenets:
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.
5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

But seriously though, those are the Tenets and they do apply to everyone.

On topic, yes this has been discussed to death. As a result I am a fan of playing the Valk with Multiple Rocket Pods as they are defensive weapons.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:So having a model that looks like darth Vader and emprah palpitine (check the gallery) having am imperial shuttle to house the stormtroopers with them is now trolling? Yes yes course it is I see your logic. I answered your question with my opinion of because it looks cool. Yet for answering your question I am troll makes sense. And clearly modeling to my advantage with modeling hinges that go up and down.

Model it with fold up wings. That's fine. It even looks cool.

Using that model is modeling for advantage if you leave the wings up all the time as it alters the shape of the unit you're representing significantly.
If you try and deploy with the wings up, then drop them down during the game I'd ask that you show me where you have permission to alter your models during the game.

In short, using a different model to get around the fact that a Valk/Vendetta has to move cruising speed to get on the board is modeling for advantage.

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:So having a model that looks like darth Vader and emprah palpitine (check the gallery) having am imperial shuttle to house the stormtroopers with them is now trolling? Yes yes course it is I see your logic. I answered your question with my opinion of because it looks cool. Yet for answering your question I am troll makes sense. And clearly modeling to my advantage with modeling hinges that go up and down.

Model it with fold up wings. That's fine. It even looks cool.

Using that model is modeling for advantage if you leave the wings up all the time as it alters the shape of the unit you're representing significantly.
If you try and deploy with the wings up, then drop them down during the game I'd ask that you show me where you have permission to alter your models during the game.

In short, using a different model to get around the fact that a Valk/Vendetta has to move cruising speed to get on the board is modeling for advantage.

Basically this. No one will have a problem with anyone using a cool model, Rule of Cool and all. Its when you try to use the model to break rules that people get, understandably, up in arms.

Icemyn wrote:
No DoW this is trolling.

Thank you for your post, Iceman!

Please don't call me a troll. It violates #5 of the Tenets of YMDC!

Here is the relevant rule for your edification:

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Thanks and have an excellent day!

DoW

Thank you icemyn for upholding my honor.....I think. Dow you clearlycalled me troll lol. So in effect you violated the tenets.

DoW, please note, you were the one who originally called someone a troll (Icemyn) in this thread. If you are going to call him out for violating the tenets, I believe there is a saying for that: "Pot calling the Kettle black".

Oh it's true, but I did feel THE's post was unnecessarily provocative after the discussion had already reached a reasonable conclusion. It was probably inappropriate usage of a term, but I felt it was somewhat deserved. My apologies if anyone else was offended.

With regards to Iceman, well he's just sore because I called him on completely violating the Tenets on a different thread. I can understand why he's getting stroppy though, I remember being like that at his age.

A vendetta on a Vendetta thread. How cute!

DoW