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.

Hollismason wrote:Older GW flying bases are taller don't forget to add in the few centimeters for the stand as well as the attachment; Basically it sits around 2/ 3/4th of a inch off the ground or at least mine do and I have the same landspeeders everyone else does.

The current landspeeder model has only ever been released with the current flight bases. The taller flight bases haven't been around since 2nd edition.

Even with the ball joint on top (which I don't think they come with any more), the tallest stem isn't more than 2". If yours are taller, you're not using the base it was supplied with.

My whole point is that this is kind of just taking it a little to far and then that is the whole " common sense is not common."

Taking what too far?

Discussing the rules serves to make everyone aware of what the rules actually are. In this situation, it turns out that a lot of players play in a way that is actually contrary to the rules, and in many cases are not even aware of this fact. Making them aware of it serves to reduce potential problems... They're not caught by surprise when an opponent calls them on it.

There's nothing wrong with measuring horizontally for disembarking distance... so long as you're aware of the fact that it's not actually what the rules say to do, and are prepared for the fact that others may play it diferently... either by the rules as written, or by some other house rule.

Taking your house rule and assuming that it's the only way to play the game is where problems lie.

Like Flexen said if you ignore the vertical plane things get dicey. Disembarking from a tank to the 3rd level of a building doesn't seem right.

No Offence, but if you DO consider the vertical plane, thats the only way you CAN disembark from a Valk

Which brings us back to: The rules in this situation just don't work properly. Sort it out with your opponent.

Well given that the current ruling for the Indy GT circuit is to play horizontally, and all indications are that is going to be the rulling for the INAT FAQ as well maybe we can put this one to bed.

The RAW is very easily debatable, yes but its not clear either way. Either case requires you to presume things that are not written. Nothing in the rules says to measure vertically, the example shows horizontal but there is mention of 3d measurment in other places so its just nothing but questions.

It is however very clear that the intent was for them to be able to disembark.

On the other hand, the claiming objectives issue is not ambiguous at all, by the RAW valks cant contest objectives, if you measure by the hull. If you use the bese then enemy weapons should be able to hit me by the base as well.

Taking a look at the model though if you are shooting at my valk you dont want to measure from the base because it extends so far from the base and the stand is not 10" high it is 5" so short melta range works just fine.

The problem is that you either have to make compromises with the poorly written rules or you have to make rulings that are very obviously against the intent of the codex either way some people will be unhappy.

bigtmac68 wrote:Well given that the current ruling for the Indy GT circuit is to play horizontally, and all indications are that is going to be the rulling for the INAT FAQ as well maybe we can put this one to bed.

The RAW is very easily debatable, yes but its not clear either way. Either case requires you to presume things that are not written. Nothing in the rules says to measure vertically, the example shows horizontal but there is mention of 3d measurment in other places so its just nothing but questions.

It is however very clear that the intent was for them to be able to disembark.

On the other hand, the claiming objectives issue is not ambiguous at all, by the RAW valks cant contest objectives, if you measure by the hull. If you use the bese then enemy weapons should be able to hit me by the base as well.

Taking a look at the model though if you are shooting at my valk you dont want to measure from the base because it extends so far from the base and the stand is not 10" high it is 5" so short melta range works just fine.

The problem is that you either have to make compromises with the poorly written rules or you have to make rulings that are very obviously against the intent of the codex either way some people will be unhappy.

Oh my gooses, did a Dakka YMDC thread just end on an amicable note with a general consensus arrived at by hashing out how the rules work? I think I may have to watch out for falling pig feces.

Kaaihn wrote:Include a few pieces of terrain that are a few inches tall. They can disembark onto higher terrain, or they can use the grav chute insertion. No reason to modify rules when it can easily be made playable using the existing ones.
That's if your opponent is someone who has ever pulled the "you absolutely must use RAW even though it is clearly broken" stuff. For anyone else that you would enjoy a friendly game with, I don't mind them embarking/disembarking from the base.

bigtmac68 wrote:It is however very clear that the intent was for them to be able to disembark.

The RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."

willydstyle wrote:
Oh my gooses, did a Dakka YMDC thread just end on an amicable note with a general consensus arrived at by hashing out how the rules work? I think I may have to watch out for falling pig feces.

Nah, people just got bored when the 'Let's resort to appeals to authority!' people came in and started talking about tournament rulings. Everybody knows that you can't reach consensus on the Internet. This is just the cease fire.

What if you were to attack the Valk to the base by a ball joint located near the nose and rotate it so the tail is pointed towards the ground for disembarking and scoring, and point it up normally for all other purposes? That would fit with the rotation vehicles rules seeing as nothing says you can't rotate them in 3 dimensions. That being said, could you rotate a landraider 90 degrees up on its rear if it were to give you an advantage?

nostromo wrote:The RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."

I completely agree.
RAI can't be determined so you go with RAW. IMO the vendetta is good enough for it points even with no transport capability what so ever so no need to house rule it either.

Norade wrote:What if you were to attack the Valk to the base by a ball joint located near the nose and rotate it so the tail is pointed towards the ground for disembarking and scoring, and point it up normally for all other purposes? That would fit with the rotation vehicles rules seeing as nothing says you can't rotate them in 3 dimensions. That being said, could you rotate a landraider 90 degrees up on its rear if it were to give you an advantage?

I like this idea

Course, I just like it 'cause it would make for the most awesome armored advance in the history of 40k.

The RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."

I cant see how you can say that RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations.

Im not saying that there is clear RAW in support of disembarkation, I freely admit its a cluster bleep of a problem due to unclearly written rules and a lack of consideration by GW of the complications of the flying base. But to blithely dismiss the argument as
"Well RAW is clear", is just refusing to look at both sides of the argument.

As for RAI that is very clear since the book itself says that Grav Shute insertion is done In addition to regular disembarkation and only if the model moves over 12"

" if the model moves over 12" the troops may STILL disembark ..."

Is this a well worded rule that makes things clear, no its a piece of crap that insults us by its refusal to explain things properly. But it also makes very clear that the makes of the book intended for the Vaklyrie to be a Transport like any other transport but with an added ability that is well balanced by the extremely high risk to the unit using it.

Again, thank god for sane TO's this is why I only go to tourneys that either use the INAT FAQ or have something simillar that clears up rulings in advance. I may not agree with all of the rulings in the FAQ, but I thank god for the clarity it provides.

Finally, on the subject of the realism of units disembarking and rembarking on the Valkyrie, that one annoys me particularly as I served in the 1/504 PIR, 82nd Airborne, and 20 years ago we were all trained on how to disembark from a hovering VTOL ( the valk is a VTOL) by fastroping. Its no streatch of credulity to assume that the IG has at least equal training to our own airmobile infantry. Rembarking is pretty simple as well as it's not like the damn plane dose not have the landing gear permanently deployed, so its obviously intended for the same kind of fast skip pickups as any other VTOL.

I just dont understand how anyone would thing that it's RAI for them to make it a transport that cant function as a transport without saying something to that effect. I can see them not bothering to explain how you would do it because they dont belive that rules are that important, but when they want to DISALLOW something they are usually pretty specific about that.

bigtmac68 wrote:

The RAW is clear enough, no need to start guessing GW's intent here.
They CAN do that, but it's called a grav shute insertion.

but since you started it i'll give my version of RAI:
GW realised that disembarking wouldn't be possible under normal circumstances so they gave it it's own special rule for 'disembarking':
"What could be more fluffly than chutes to disembark from a flyer? Lets call them grav chutes!"
"Yeah catchy name, but that means they can't reembark, wouldn't that be a problem?"
"Nah they're imperial guard, they only get a one way ticket to the battlefield. Besides allowing them to re-embark from ground level would be like watching parachutes leave the ground float slowly up and then dissapear neatly into the back of the place again..."

I cant see how you can say that RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations.

Im not saying that there is clear RAW in support of disembarkation, I freely admit its a cluster bleep of a problem due to unclearly written rules and a lack of consideration by GW of the complications of the flying base. But to blithely dismiss the argument as
"Well RAW is clear", is just refusing to look at both sides of the argument.

As for RAI that is very clear since the book itself says that Grav Shute insertion is done In addition to regular disembarkation and only if the model moves over 12"

" if the model moves over 12" the troops may STILL disembark ..."

Is this a well worded rule that makes things clear, no its a piece of crap that insults us by its refusal to explain things properly. But it also makes very clear that the makes of the book intended for the Vaklyrie to be a Transport like any other transport but with an added ability that is well balanced by the extremely high risk to the unit using it.

Again, thank god for sane TO's this is why I only go to tourneys that either use the INAT FAQ or have something simillar that clears up rulings in advance. I may not agree with all of the rulings in the FAQ, but I thank god for the clarity it provides.

Finally, on the subject of the realism of units disembarking and rembarking on the Valkyrie, that one annoys me particularly as I served in the 1/504 PIR, 82nd Airborne, and 20 years ago we were all trained on how to disembark from a hovering VTOL ( the valk is a VTOL) by fastroping. Its no streatch of credulity to assume that the IG has at least equal training to our own airmobile infantry. Rembarking is pretty simple as well as it's not like the damn plane dose not have the landing gear permanently deployed, so its obviously intended for the same kind of fast skip pickups as any other VTOL.

I just dont understand how anyone would thing that it's RAI for them to make it a transport that cant function as a transport without saying something to that effect. I can see them not bothering to explain how you would do it because they dont belive that rules are that important, but when they want to DISALLOW something they are usually pretty specific about that.

I stopped by my local GW store last night and happened to mention the argument on this thread. Without hesitation 3 staff members agreed that players should measure from the base of the model (as a proxy to the rule of measuring from the hull)- for disembarking troops and embarking troops. They also recommended sketching/painting guides on the model base in reference to the hatch locations so a 2" measurement can be easily accomplished. They postulated that in 1 turn, the vehicle can drop from the sky, unload, and rise quickly up in seconds. When we deploy our forces we forgo the actions of removing the base, lowering the model, unloading the troops, and then returning it back to the base - all for simplicity sake. It was the first time I laid eyes on the vehicle and the base (I had the impression it was 10 inches tall but rather it was about 5inches tall) and it was obvious to me that the GW staff got it right.
It is now clear in my mind.

*edited for clarity of my argument

Its quite simple really, trim the base down, and say it was broken when you got it.

No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.

Wow the rules say to measure from the base? Please quote that rule.

It doesn't. People are idiots who play Househammer 40k

Dracos wrote:Wow the rules say to measure from the base? Please quote that rule.

I mis-spoke and I was not clear enough. The rule says measure from the hull - however in the case of the valkyrie, the base is roughly the same size as the hull and therefore can be marked for accurate measurement. I don't see any game breaking rules by following these methods.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Its quite simple really, trim the base down, and say it was broken when you got it.

No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.

Except you would not be using the base it was supplied with - you'd be "modelling for advantage" and lying.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:It doesn't. People are idiots who play Househammer 40k

Using Houserules is only for idiots?

Numpty!

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Its quite simple really, trim the base down, and say it was broken when you got it.

No-one can prove otherwise and you are putting it on the official base it came on.

Case Closed.

If you want to argue this - then you could simply do the same for any other model. If a player wants to be dishonest, then measuring from the hull or the base will not stop them. To be honest, if you feel like you need to trim down your base to beat me, then go ahead, it shows how weak a gamer you really are.

bigtmac68 wrote:There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only)

The example does not show horizontal only. It shows a top-down view, presumably because that's the easiest way to show the 2" zone around the access points in a clear diagram.

Measuring from one point to another means measuring from that first point to the second. That inherently includes all 3 planes. Otherwise, as has been covered before, you're not measuring the actual distance.

Flexen wrote:I stopped by my local GW store last night and happened to mention the argument on this thread. Without hesitation 3 staff members agreed that the rules say measure from the base of the model.

That's 3 staff member who haven't noticed the rule on page 71 that tells us to ignore the base of the skimmer and measure to and from the hull instead...

insaniak wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only)

The example does not show horizontal only. It shows a top-down view, presumably because that's the easiest way to show the 2" zone around the access points in a clear diagram.

Measuring from one point to another means measuring from that first point to the second. That inherently includes all 3 planes. Otherwise, as has been covered before, you're not measuring the actual distance.

Flexen wrote:I stopped by my local GW store last night and happened to mention the argument on this thread. Without hesitation 3 staff members agreed that the rules say measure from the base of the model.

That's 3 staff member who haven't noticed the rule on page 71 that tells us to ignore the base of the skimmer and measure to and from the hull instead...

I took that rule as to pertain to shooting and not disembarking. On page 71 it says nothing about disembarking troops.

It does mention access points...

Flexen wrote:I took that rule as to pertain to shooting and not disembarking. On page 71 it says nothing about disembarking troops.

The rule is entitled 'Measuring Distances' and refers to measuring distances to and from the vehicle's hull.

Measuring the disemarkation area is measuring a distance.

RustyKnight wrote:It does mention access points...

and the answer might be in the last sentence of that paragraph.

"The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting the skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both."

If assaulting troops can use the base or the hull then disembarking troops should be able to use the same standard.

I cant see how you can say that RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations.

The RAW is painfully clear, as is the language.

"When the unit disembarks, each model is
deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle’s access
points, and within unit coherency."

Note that the rules do not limit the 2" to the horizontal plane. You may think this is an unintended oversight or that there is an implicit assumption limiting this to horizontal distance, but it doesn't change what the rule actually says. Once you start down the path of "well the book mostly deals with horizontal distances..." you've strayed away from RAW and right into RAI.

Pretending that it is ambiguous because you are fundamentally opposed to accepting the consequences of the rules as written only confounds things. Accept the poor rules writing for what it is and move on.

The debate about the verticle axis is really crux of this matter. Here's the problem: 40k simply doesn't use a z-axies, or if it does, it was neither envisioned nor included by the games designers.

For starters, there is no mention of the z-axis, except for the sole rule about levels of ruins.

Secondly, it's been a custom to ignore it for at least as long as I've played. When jump packs move 12", we don't measure the length of their rainbow arc, but the distance on the table between the start and the end. When a model climbs a 3" hill, we still allow the rolled Difficult terrain distance horizontally. If firing a template weapon at a ruin level higher than the model, we don't subtract the 3" between levels from it's range. In fact, a model can shoot at full range at models on any level of a ruin, even if actually out of 3-D range.

Now, the problem is that skimmers in general, and the Valkyrie in paricular, become pretty unwieldy. Of course, we could follow the rule which states, under measuring distances, that "A skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting..."

Now, we can choose to change many of these aspects of 40k, or we can assume that the 40k rulebooks totally silence about a z-axis implies, not that skimmers are somehow utterly different and alien from all other models, but that skimmers use a modified "magic cylinder", and that all ranges are measured to where the hull would exist on the table top in a truly 2D game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

I cant see how you can say that RAW is clear when the majority disagree with your ruling, There is NO rule in the book that supports your statement without adding unwritten interpetations to the rule ( i.e. that the 2" referes to vertical AND horizontal mesurement when the example also shows horizontal only) And when your clear RAW is not agreed to by any of the major tournmant FAQs or organizations.

The RAW is painfully clear, as is the language.

"When the unit disembarks, each model is
deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle’s access
points, and within unit coherency."

Note that the rules do not limit the 2" to the horizontal plane. You may think this is an unintended oversight or that there is an implicit assumption limiting this to horizontal distance, but it doesn't change what the rule actually says. Once you start down the path of "well the book mostly deals with horizontal distances..." you've strayed away from RAW and right into RAI.

Pretending that it is ambiguous because you are fundamentally opposed to accepting the consequences of the rules as written only confounds things. Accept the poor rules writing for what it is and move on.

Well, it's pretty clearly an unintended oversight, but don't make the mistake of conflating RAW and literalism. Rules only have meaning in the context of all the language used, and isolating a single phrase in a vacuum is placing semantics over meaning. The overall context of the rules strongly shows a 2D game, and a single instance that possibly counters that needs to be read in the overall context, particularly when the rule, as written, is broken.

Well, it's pretty clearly an unintended oversight, but don't make the mistake of conflating RAW and literalism. Rules only have meaning in the context of all the language used, and isolating a single phrase in a vacuum is placing semantics over meaning. The overall context of the rules strongly shows a 2D game, and a single instance that possibly counters that needs to be read in the overall context, particularly when the rule, as written, is broken.

Most of the game is played in 2 dimensions, however not all of it is, as is made clear in, for example, the rules for Ruins. But just because most of the game can be played in 2 dimensions doesn't stand to reason that all of it can. Therefore, to automatically assume that all rules in the book are limited to 2 dimensions is incorrect in both the literal and RAW senses.

Personally, I chose option B in the poll, however I do so knowing that a rule is consciously being broken. It seems many people refuse to acknowledge even that much.

Polonius wrote:For starters, there is no mention of the z-axis, except for the sole rule about levels of ruins.

There's no mention of the x or y axis either. So which way can models move?

They move across the terrain, up to the allowed distance. That inherently includes moving in whichever direction the movement takes them. They don't need to specifically mention that this includes vertical distance, because that happens automatically. If the models moves up a hill, then it's moving up the hill.

Secondly, it's been a custom to ignore it for at least as long as I've played. When jump packs move 12", we don't measure the length of their rainbow arc, but the distance on the table between the start and the end.

We don't, becuase it's easier not to, or because the assumption is that intervening obstacles are ignored, rather than moved over. But so far as the rules are concerned, we should. You're supposed to measure the unit's actual movement. The fact that players choose to do it differently has no effect on the actual rules.

When a model climbs a 3" hill, we still allow the rolled Difficult terrain distance horizontally.

I don't. I measure movement distance up hills along the actual terrain.

If firing a template weapon at a ruin level higher than the model, we don't subtract the 3" between levels from it's range.

Of course we don't. You measure the actual range to the actual models you're firing at.

In fact, a model can shoot at full range at models on any level of a ruin, even if actually out of 3-D range.

Based on what?

The rules for measuring Range tell us to measure from the base of the firing model to the base of the target.

Now, we can choose to change many of these aspects of 40k, or we can assume that the 40k rulebooks totally silence about a z-axis implies, not that skimmers are somehow utterly different and alien from all other models, but that skimmers use a modified "magic cylinder", and that all ranges are measured to where the hull would exist on the table top in a truly 2D game.

Or we can come up with some other house rule which would be equally valid so long as our opponent agrees.

The point being made isn't that the rules aren't screwy. It's that measuring from the base is a house rule, not what the rules actually say to do.

I completely agree that the Valkyrie requires house rules to function correctly.

Danny Internets wrote:

Well, it's pretty clearly an unintended oversight, but don't make the mistake of conflating RAW and literalism. Rules only have meaning in the context of all the language used, and isolating a single phrase in a vacuum is placing semantics over meaning. The overall context of the rules strongly shows a 2D game, and a single instance that possibly counters that needs to be read in the overall context, particularly when the rule, as written, is broken.

I agree context is important, however the book does indeed deal with both vertical and horizontal differences, so in this case literalism and RAW completely overlap.

Most of the game is indeed played in 2 dimensions, however not all of it is, as is made clear in, for example, the rules for Ruins. But just because most of the game can be played in 2 dimensions doesn't stand to reason that all of it can. Therefore, to automatically assume that all rules in the book are limited to 2 dimensions is both incorrect in both the literal and RAW senses.

Well, as I stated in my posts, ruins are the ONLY time that verticle distances are used, and they are highly abstracted. I wrote about a number of times when verticle movement is ignored by all players (climbing hills, jump infantry, range into and out of ruins). Even in the ruins rules, the blast rules are 2d (like a battle cannon shell woudln't have a spherical blast...).

So, we see a huge set of rules that strongly imply a horizontal world, a few rules dealing with stacking units in floors (which is really all the ruins rules are), and one oddity that causes massive problems if 40k is 3D.

Double post. Darn Quote button where the Edit button should be...