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.

The same is true of quite a few vehicles. Most tanks with sponsons, for starters.

After reading the thread, I don't see any RAW reason to think that the skimmers occupy the space beneath them.

When I started playing I wondered about moving beneath skimmers but I have never seen a rule against it. Using the rest of the movement rules it seems possible and there is no rule to prevent this AFAIK.

The talk about this invisible cylinder is not based in any way, shape or form on 5th edition rules as far as I can tell.

I would say by RAW the wings and tail on the valk are part as their hull as much as any other part. I've only played a couple friendly games with opponents using the model. I can't insist enough that people work everything out with their opponent beforehand (or your TO).

The valk just works very strangely by RAW: no disembarking or contesting @ ground level, great LOS to the field, dodging melta.

@insaniak

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a tank that can poke out its guns the way a valk can under the "wings don't count" approach. A LRuss' sponsons might be able to poke out with a very limited LOS, a LRaider, probably not, an Annihilator... possibly, but, again, with a truncated LOS. And all of those tanks' sponsons are mounted directly to the hull.

I think the rules re: vehicle hulls is to prevent modeling choices (antenna arrays, spikes, etc...) from being targetable. Having almost 50% of the mass of your vehicle just not count seems silly, and well beyond RAI (cue RAW gnashing of teeth)

DarthDiggler wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:I have seen so many different rulings on this that I deliberately asked the TO before the tournament which is why they were positioned that way.

Privately getting a ruling from the TO beforehand leaves a bad taste in my mouth. First since you are the only one to know a rule has been changed you can play it to your advantage with your opponent not knowing how it is done. Second it allows you and you alone to present your side of the debate to the judge in private with no counter argument present. You secure the ruling in your favor quite easily and when it comes up during a game the judge will dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary just because he has made the call already. I have seen judges say 'well you might be right, but I ruled this way already.' and leave it that way until the next tournament.

The propoer course of action would be for the judge to open the floor for discussion before making a ruling so both sides of the debate can be heard. Needless to say your GW rep is a wonderfully shoddy source of information for this ruling. Should will trump that with the Midwest director of sales or US regional manager?

I was not "privately" getting a ruling from the judge. I was trying to clarify how a model would be played before designing my army list. It was critical for me to know because trying to run squadroned valkyries without some allowance for the footprint of the model is almost impossible. If the ruling had been otherwise i would not have taken squadroned Valkyries and would have changed the army list design. I dont see how it is a bad thing to try to eliminate issues before they come up.

And frankly after all this mess I have changed my list for the regionals because its just not worth dealing with it. Until GW puts out some kind of written ruling I dont feel like running into disagreements at every new tournament about it.

It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

All model movement is measured to the hull of a vehicle or the base, being that a Valk has a base, use it. Thats how GW will tell you to do it to. There is a reason that it does not have a clear base like any other skimmer, and it must be to use fore movement and placement, otherwise you cannot use the rear acess hatch, because the exiting unit, using the back acess, would be under the tail, and because you have to disembark within 2 inches of an acess point, it is impossible, thus the base is used. So to reiterate the easiest solution, is measure from the base, and shooting from the weapons themselves.

doubled wrote:All model movement is measured to the hull of a vehicle or the base, being that a Valk has a base, use it. Thats how GW will tell you to do it to. There is a reason that it does not have a clear base like any other skimmer, and it must be to use fore movement and placement, otherwise you cannot use the rear acess hatch, because the exiting unit, using the back acess, would be under the tail, and because you have to disembark within 2 inches of an acess point, it is impossible, thus the base is used. So to reiterate the easiest solution, is measure from the base, and shooting from the weapons themselves.

Just a correction here. On pg 71 of the BRB you measure movement of a skimmer from the hull ignoring the base except for assault purposes. This has been stated earlier in the thread. Like it has been said before. It is up to your opponent or TO how the models is played. It would be wise to find out how it will be ruled before investing that kind of money to assemble that kind of list.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

I don't see anything underhanded about asking how a TO is planning to handle an issue.

Especially when the issue in question is an item that is open to much interpretation and debate. I say kudos to the guy that asked for having the forethought to avoid an argument after the games have begun.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

Like the def rollers?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:It does come across as underhanded. Everyone should have been made aware of this House Rule before the 1st dice dropped.

Like the def rollers?

If you don't ask the question, then shame on you. Although it would be nice if the TO posted an FAQ beforehand, it's not required and it certainly isn't required of him/her to phone every participant and tell their decision on Deff Rollas.

What would be underhanded is if person A regular-at-the-store asked in person and got a 'yes they work' and person B from out-of-town called and got a 'no they don't', then on game day shows up with Raider Spam to find out that Person A has 6 BW with Deff Rollas and hey, they work now!

The problem with the new gunship is it has opened a world of opportunity for douchebags.

Ok so im a douchebag for trying to clarify the rules before the event.

I did nothing in secret, and none of my other opponents questioned it. I agree it should have been mentioned before the tournament but Its not my place to do that.

So in your mind anyone using the valkyrie models is a DB?

If thats the case then I consider being considered a DB by you as a badge of honor.

@bigtmac68: No, you're not a douchebag. I don't know what a DB is, but I don't think you did anything wrong by clarifying a possible issue before you made the mistake mid-game.

DB short for Douchebag ;-) And thank you.

bigtmac68 wrote:Ok so im a douchebag for trying to clarify the rules before the event.

You are not a douchebag. You did the right thing, and the same thing any of us would have done prior to an event. There are ambiguous rules in 40k and it's nice to know how a TO wants them to work in their event. It's the same advice we always give on this forum. Check with your opponent or TO beforehand to know what to do in situation "x".

Some people are clearly inventing a double standard, and are being the vocal minority and trying to claim foul play for some ill conceived reason. You did your due dilligence and found out how the TO wanted the Valks to work, and unfortunately, your opponent felt it should have played a different way, and the TO's ruling left a sour taste in his mouth. His ire should be directed to the TO for making a "bad call", not for you for playing the game.

GW is a minatures company that also happens to produce rules. Everyone needs to remember that.

Which is why they've made an awesome model in the Valk, but it's caused a lot of confusion as to 'how' to play it.

Asking for a ruling before a tourney is the best thing a player can do.

ultimately, i think it all boils down to the base of the model. that's where the "buck stops". any model with a base, flying or otherwise measures all actions (from shooting, assaulting, moving, embarking, disembarking and anything else possibly conceivable) in the turn phases from that base, to another base, vehicle or terrain.

the overlap issue of the valkyrie models is not important. as long as the bases didn't overlap. bottom line: the base is where it's at. the base is the only space on the gaming table the flying model occupies.

if dealing with a flying tank or transport or whatever, then all combat actions must be directed at the base. they are different than a landraider. they fly. they have different rules, and they have bases. in a tournament, you can't play an eldar falcon without a base. flying models must have a base.

it is an los issue. anyone that can see the flying model and has range to the BASE of the flying model may shoot and/or assault the model. no, flying models are not invisible if there is no los to its base. the base is just a reference point to the exact location of the model on the gaming table.

this also includes flying vehicles shooting, models shooting from flying vehicles, and models disembarking from flying vehicles. they can't disembark six inches beyond the base, running off the wings. nor can they measure their gun range from the actual weapon. if a model has a base, then the base of the model always defines its gaming parameters. period.

gothmog wrote:iultimately, i think it all boils down to the base of the model. that's where the "buck stops". any model with a base, flying or otherwise measures all actions in the turn phases from that base, to another base or vehicle.

the overlap issue of the valkyrie models is not important. as long as the bases didn't overlap. bottom line: the base is where it's at.

if dealing with a flying tank or transport or whatever, then all combat actions must be directed at the base. they are different than a landraider. they fly. they have different rules, and they have bases. in a tournament, you can't play an eldar falcon without a base. flying models must have a base.

it is an los issue. anyone that can see the flying model and has range to the BASE of the flying model may shoot and/or assault the model. no, flying models are not invisible if there is no los to its base. the base is just a reference point to the exact location of the model on the gaming table.

this also includes models disembarking from the flying vehicle. they can't disembark six inches beyond the base, running off the wings. the base of a model always defines its gaming parameters. period.

Just wow.
House rule assertion, or trolling?
Even cursory skimming of this PAGE of this thread has already proven this is simply false. Thank you, though.

(See: AdeptArticifer - in addition to the page number, he was kind enough to quote the actual rules. Again.)

which part is false?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
i hate house rules. i have no prob with the rules as long as the base can be assaulted and flying models can overlap. basically, i just dig playing the game.

new power-model + vague rules = unintended consequences and big fun. and i don't even play IG anymore. i'd like to take on the uber valk list.

gothmog wrote:which part is false?

Scroll up, as I said it is on this page.
But, as it did not work the first (lol) time so let's try this:

AdeptArtificer wrote:

doubled wrote:All model movement is measured to the hull of a vehicle or the base, being that a Valk has a base, use it. Thats how GW will tell you to do it to. There is a reason that it does not have a clear base like any other skimmer, and it must be to use fore movement and placement, otherwise you cannot use the rear acess hatch, because the exiting unit, using the back acess, would be under the tail, and because you have to disembark within 2 inches of an acess point, it is impossible, thus the base is used. So to reiterate the easiest solution, is measure from the base, and shooting from the weapons themselves.

Just a correction here. On pg 71 of the BRB you measure movement of a skimmer from the hull ignoring the base except for assault purposes. This has been stated earlier in the thread. Like it has been said before. It is up to your opponent or TO how the models is played. It would be wise to find out how it will be ruled before investing that kind of money to assemble that kind of list.

Your assesment of the use of skimmer bases was false. For other models . . . shrug