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.

moonfire wrote:if they wanna play like that i' will be the last time that I play against them.

and btw it's game ment for fun not like the American way (didn't knew that it was that bad overthere)

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised myself how serious business the game is for our brothers across the pond

Because judgments based on a few sentences posted on a public, international forum are fun...

willydstyle wrote:Because judgments based on a few sentences posted on a public, international forum are fun...

Not as much fun as actually being able to use your Valkyries

Like I said before, with 9 out of 10 opponents you'll reach a mutually agreeable system. When playing in a store you could always ask the store owner to make the call. If that doesn't work, flip a coin.
If that doesn't fly and the opponent is still adamant it should be his way? Then he really isn't worth my time.

Please note I'd be perfectly happy to use this way to decide rules questions concerning my opponent's army as well.

Sgt Rinehart wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Because judgments based on a few sentences posted on a public, international forum are fun...

Not as much fun as actually being able to use your Valkyries

Like I said before, with 9 out of 10 opponents you'll reach a mutually agreeable system. When playing in a store you could always ask the store owner to make the call. If that doesn't work, flip a coin.
If that doesn't fly and the opponent is still adamant it should be his way? Then he really isn't worth my time.

Please note I'd be perfectly happy to use this way to decide rules questions concerning my opponent's army as well.

But, what you're saying basically (aside from the coin flip comment) is that unless your can convince your opponent to agree with you, you won't play. Even if your opponent disagrees with you, his point of view is just as valid as your own, why should he be the one to "give in" if he's the one that actually has the rules on his side?

willydstyle wrote:Well, there's always the grav chute deployment that there are rules for.

Most of the opponents that I like to play want to play as close to the rules as possible.

I guess you can refuse games all you want... but to do so because your opponent wants to play close to the rules seems like poor sportsmanship to me.

GW needs to write better rules.

Not at all. They just need the same skimmer stand as every other skimmer and its a complete non-issue.

I'm more than willing to accept an opponent's take on things. Like I've said several times before, it has to be possible to reach a mutually agreeable solution.
In the specific case of the Valkyrie, yes, I will maintain that it is a transport and thus has some way of deploying the embarked troops. How this will be represented in the game is something I'm willing to be quite flexible about.
If I think the opponent will be worth my while, I'd even flip a coin to decide whether or not troops can disembark from the Valk if nothing else works.

Whenever I've had a rules dispute we couldn't settle on, we always resolved it with a dice roll. I have to say I used to play against a limited number of opponents who I knew quite well, so that might have helped as well.

I can't believe I got into this discussion without even owning a Valkyrie yet...

Just as well the one that I do have will never be fielded outside of an apocalypse game (and then only with certain players - all of whom are over 21 and free to enjoy a bevvy or three during the game).

willydstyle wrote: why should he be the one to "give in" if he's the one that actually has the rules on his side?

because the rules *also* say not to be a jerk - RAI is more important than RAW.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

willydstyle wrote: why should he be the one to "give in" if he's the one that actually has the rules on his side?

because the rules *also* say not to be a jerk - RAI is more important than RAW.

Newsflash: bullying someone into playing by your house rule is *also* being a jerk.

Danny Internets wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

willydstyle wrote: why should he be the one to "give in" if he's the one that actually has the rules on his side?

because the rules *also* say not to be a jerk - RAI is more important than RAW.

Newsflash: bullying someone into playing by your house rule is *also* being a jerk.

I'm glad that someone else understands what I'm trying to say.

I'm not saying "Oh man, I would never let an IG player disembark because I'm escairt of his vets!"

Danny Internets wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

willydstyle wrote: why should he be the one to "give in" if he's the one that actually has the rules on his side?

because the rules *also* say not to be a jerk - RAI is more important than RAW.

Newsflash: bullying someone into playing by your house rule is *also* being a jerk.

No, but pointing out that your house rule is closer to community standards, including tournaments play, isn't exactly bullying.

What makes so many people feel that you are being TFG is your adamant assertion that YOUR interpretation of the RAW is the only possible one in a case where everything we are doing is trying to determine how to deal with a stand that has never been mentioned in the rules, ever. It is not a normal skimmer stand, so applying the rules that govern those stands as if there is no difference is at best a solid interpretation, but not the only one.

Since no tournament including the official GW GT and Ard Boyz has EVER mandated the kind of 3D movement rules that would be required to justify the assertion that deployment is done using the Z axis, just repeating that

"I AM RIGHT!!!" Instead of " I am convinced of my opinion" make you look like a DB.

I am convinced of my opinion, but im not so arrogant as to assume that my interpretation of a poorly written ruleset is the only possible one.

Guys, do what I did and model your guardsmen with 5" tall bases, it resolves all the rule problems in one go.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Guys, do what I did and model your guardsmen with 5" tall bases, it resolves all the rule problems in one go.

Hmm, where would we find something 5" tall that would be usuable as a base for a guardsmen....

Newsflash: bullying someone into playing by your house rule is *also* being a jerk.

I'm glad that someone else understands what I'm trying to say.

You seem to be insisting that folks who use a house rule, to cover an problem with the RAW (a) are "bullying" people into using them, and (b) are jerks if they won't play because the argument can't be settled without making the game unfun..

Some folks happen to think that house rules can be agreeded upon, without (a) or (b)

Based on the way the Valk is modeled, with integral landing gear, I'm going to suggest that, when Embarking / Disembarking, the model simply be taken off it's base and placed on the board.

Interestingly, based on the pictures and such, this appears to be how GW deals with the situation as well...

Certainly not a terrible house rule, and if your opponents agree its coolbeans. But be aware that taking a skimmer off its base is explicitly prohibited if its not destroyed.

Yeah, yeah, we know...

The thing is to come up with something playable that causes the least amount of problems.

Denying someone the "normal" use of their $50+ model seems to be far worse, IMO.

Is this issue really any different than all the other issues in the past 20+ years that GW has been around? They tend to make tournament games with loopholes and imbalances, yet pretend there are none. After 20+ years of this people still buy their games and expect balance to suddenly happen?

Consumer rule #1: Educate yourself to a product before buying. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you DO buy it, then you are supporting it.

HorrorFan wrote:Is this issue really any different than all the other issues in the past 20+ years that GW has been around?

They tend to make tournament games with loopholes and imbalances, yet pretend there are none.

No, of course not.

I'd rephrase that: "They tend to make games with loopholes and imbalances when played for tournaments, and couldn't care less about it".

Can't a few house rules patch up problems until a FAQ appears?

Howard A Treesong wrote:Can't a few house rules patch up problems until a FAQ appears?

Yeah, I'm sure that's how we'll play it at our FLGS - just take it off the stand and "land" it when you wanna disembark.

Even in tourneys, nobody's gonna get their panties in a wad over it, I'm sure. We're very fortunate not to have TFG at our local FLGS.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Can't a few house rules patch up problems until a FAQ appears?

Yes, very easily, as has been shown by the Big Waagh Indy GT, The intended updates to the INAT FAQ, and what I am told will be the ruling for Ard Boyz all of which are just variations on the example shown in the book itself. ( i.e. just use 2d measurment for deployment, or consider the model to be on the table for the purposes of measurements.)

I say again that this is a manufactured controversey.

I really Craig's point in the most recent D6G was a good one when he dismissed the entire controversy by saying, "this would only come up for people trying to read for advantage."

Some people dont like the Valkyrie, so they are lobbying to cripple the model by imposing an intepretation of the rules that has never been used for any other model. (Exept those two of you out there that claim to actually measure out parabolic arcs for all thier skimmers and jump troops- something I have never seen once in 15 years of miniature wargaming, including tournaments in 12 states, and two countries)

Commissar Molotov wrote:Yeah, I'm sure that's how we'll play it at our FLGS - just take it off the stand and "land" it when you wanna disembark.

Even in tourneys, nobody's gonna get their panties in a wad over it, I'm sure. We're very fortunate not to have TFG at our local FLGS.

I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.

Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.

avantgarde wrote:

Commissar Molotov wrote:Yeah, I'm sure that's how we'll play it at our FLGS - just take it off the stand and "land" it when you wanna disembark.

Even in tourneys, nobody's gonna get their panties in a wad over it, I'm sure. We're very fortunate not to have TFG at our local FLGS.

I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.

Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.

Why cant you melta it? Mine take melta shots all the time. 5" off the ground, but 8x11 means that it is VERY EASY to get in melta range of these things. The only advantage to the height of the stand is for LOS but that is an extremely two edged sword and is more of a disadvantage than an advantage when you have an AV12 vehicle that can not hide or get cover EVER.

Most people use top down measurement anyway ( again the way its shown in the book ) for those people this is simply never an issue. Thats how I measure from my valks, and how I expect my opponents to measure to me. And the rulling so far has been that its all or nothing. All measurements are done using the model as if it were on the table, but LOS is true so I never get cover, ever and that is a major disadvantage. Having a transport be able to use its transport ability like any other transport ( exacly as GW has shown it is to be used) is not an "unfair advantage".

I have played almost 40 games with them using the Big Waag rulings and there has never been any problem, nor have my oppoents ever felt they were being used unfairly. Valkyries get popped all the time, by meltas, at short range. Im sorry but this really is not an issue unless you make it one.

avantgarde wrote:I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.

Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.

As I'm going to play mine, at the end of any given movement phase, a Valk is either down on the ground (0") to embark / disembark, or else up in the air (5") for shooting / being shot at. That seems simple enough, and should fit with the basic intent of things.

I think that'll look good and play fine. I'm not sure there's any obvious advantage or disadvantage to this kind of approach in the kind of casual play that I participate in.

But then, I'm past the whole tournament scene.

^Impossible that makes too much sense so doesn't fit into 40k.

What about exploding it while it's 5" in the air with guys inside.

Guys die cause it's a freaking exploding aircraft in mid-air and there's no where to place or they miraculously escape by jumping out or survive and climb out of the crater.

I think survivors would use the Valk's special rule for rapid insertion.

to be honest I think the survivors would just say "how did we get on the floor intact?" "Who cares, lets fight"

There is nothing unclear about that in the rules. I can understand the need to at least clarify about disembarkation and such but exploded valk is treated no differently than an exploded rhino unless there is a rule that says so.

I dont know why I keep getting drawn back by this thread. All the points have already been resolved for every place I have played or will ever play. but Its like a black hole that keeps pulling me back in.

I must have a massochistic streak.