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.

yeah,
Is there a reason a enemy model can't stand under the wing? It's not occuping the same space as the valk...

This is a 3d game!

Panic...

On the plus side, the flight stand made the Valkyrie's rules an issue even before the hull definition did.

OK I see what you all mean, as in >1 inch Z dimension distance vs X,Y.

That's actually fairly enlightening and solves a lot of things.

Anyone notice the base on a Valk is about the size of the Hull less Wings and Tail?

(ducks and runs, laughing) :lol

That does help some when assaulting.

The rest of the time it is 100% irrelevant.

If Games Workshop came out and said; "All measurements concerning the Valkyrie go from the base, all lines of sight come from the model," worded to the purpose that attacks to and from the Valkyrie, embarking and disembarking, would go to the base, while lines of sight and facings, including embarking and disembarking (er go models must be near the proper areas with respect to the base), to and from. I could not see many qualms from a logistics perspective. Just treat the wings as sponsons with fixed weapons, not really a big headache.

If

if


(Thats a big if)

If I may, I would like to offer some advice that could help shed some light on the subject.

First, as to the whole 'hull' thing... aircraft normally do not have hulls, they have wings and a fuselage. Thus, the stock GW definations about what can be seen for LOS applies about as throughly as for non-vehicles that do not have a humanoid body, such as a spore mine or tau drone. Where the targeting rules have failed, in the past we have always been forced to come to a compromise--so no one is happy hehe as the RAW can not be fully satisifed.

As a side note, non-vehicle models with wings EXPLICITLY exclude wings as being targetable--despite the wing being an 'obvious' part of the body and the obvious ramifications of blowing a birds wings off in respect to the health of said bird. Thus, the argument can be made that wings are excluded from vehicles for the same reasons that they are excluded from non-vehicles.

Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views. I have seen some people saying you can put a tank under a valkyrie. That is the same as stacking a rhino on top of a rhino. The rule 'No unit may occupy the same space' is not GW stating a principle of physics, namely that no 2 pieces of matter can occupy the same physical space (outside of quantum mechanics). I would love to see that game where the players had to look up the GW rule to assert that yes, the two tanks 'phasing' into each other and occuping the same space was indeed invalid.

Funny observations aside, puting something under a legal part of the valkyrie is the same as putting that vehicle under the flying base.

Also, note that there is no other restriction to being under/over a model other than not being able to occupy the same space. The 1 inch restriction applies only to enemy units in their movement phase, in the assault phase where the 1 inch rule is lifted you STILL can not occupy the same space as another model. AKA, you cant assault a rhino and stand on top of it with your assault move. Plus, the 1 inch rule only applies to enemy models, thus friendlies would be free to stand on top of their own tanks.

Finally, if you say that the wings count, but you can be under them because of the 1 inch rule (assuming you missed my above point showing the 1 inch rule doesnt apply) then what happens if you immoblize the valkyrie while you are under it. You must remove the flight stand, but doing so would have the wings definately illegally placed on top of whatever is underneath, be it friendly or enemy, as the wings and landing gear would be crushing someones models.

So in summary, the Valkyrie definately does not fit the current GW mold for vehicles, in the vein of drop pod door petals before it. My solution is to completely ignore the wings for everything, like you would ignore the wings on a non-vehicle model or the petals of an unfurled drop pod. This lets you move under/over the wings, this lets you have the wings hang off the board edge, and if you can only see the wing then you cant see the valkyrie. This pretty much fixes almost every problem there is.

People who I have discussed this with have only raised one complaint, namely that they feel the wings should count because they are 'there' or should count because they are afraid of not being able to see the valkyrie otherwise. To this, I say that the valkyrie is giagantic and elevated 8 inches off the table... show me a situation where the LOS to a valkyrie HINGES on the wings being targetable consistantly enough to warrent being forced to count the wings. I hate double standards, so saying 'well let the wings count for the things the opponent wants but not for everything else' is BS.

DevianID many things i'd like to take up with your view

First, as to the whole 'hull' thing... aircraft normally do not have hulls, they have wings and a fuselage. Thus, the stock GW definations about what can be seen for LOS applies about as throughly as for non-vehicles that do not have a humanoid body, such as a spore mine or tau drone. Where the targeting rules have failed, in the past we have always been forced to come to a compromise--so no one is happy hehe as the RAW can not be fully satisifed.

Fine I agree so far

As a side note, non-vehicle models with wings EXPLICITLY exclude wings as being targetable--despite the wing being an 'obvious' part of the body and the obvious ramifications of blowing a birds wings off in respect to the health of said bird. Thus, the argument can be made that wings are excluded from vehicles for the same reasons that they are excluded from non-vehicles.

ok'ish but i ask you if you foll that line of though Eldar skimmers become Much smaller (Hell there almost no Vyper left if you only count hull), Dreadnoughts technically have no arm or legs (its still not hull or turret) (makes a defiler quite small)

Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views. I have seen some people saying you can put a tank under a valkyrie. That is the same as stacking a rhino on top of a rhino. The rule 'No unit may occupy the same space' is not GW stating a principle of physics, namely that no 2 pieces of matter can occupy the same physical space (outside of quantum mechanics). I would love to see that game where the players had to look up the GW rule to assert that yes, the two tanks 'phasing' into each other and occuping the same space was indeed invalid.

Funny observations aside, puting something under a legal part of the valkyrie is the same as putting that vehicle under the flying base.

Also, note that there is no other restriction to being under/over a model other than not being able to occupy the same space. The 1 inch restriction applies only to enemy units in their movement phase, in the assault phase where the 1 inch rule is lifted you STILL can not occupy the same space as another model. AKA, you cant assault a rhino and stand on top of it with your assault move. Plus, the 1 inch rule only applies to enemy models, thus friendlies would be free to stand on top of their own tanks.

Thats a fine i agree with this opinuon but it contradicts your first point. Ether wings don't count or they do.

Finally, if you say that the wings count, but you can be under them because of the 1 inch rule (assuming you missed my above point showing the 1 inch rule doesnt apply) then what happens if you immoblize the valkyrie while you are under it. You must remove the flight stand, but doing so would have the wings definately illegally placed on top of whatever is underneath, be it friendly or enemy, as the wings and landing gear would be crushing someones models.

Ha if you can remove the flight stand if you can't it just floats there. Since these things are weighty, its getting securely glued in place

So in summary, the Valkyrie definately does not fit the current GW mold for vehicles, in the vein of drop pod door petals before it. My solution is to completely ignore the wings for everything, like you would ignore the wings on a non-vehicle model or the petals of an unfurled drop pod. This lets you move under/over the wings, this lets you have the wings hang off the board edge, and if you can only see the wing then you cant see the valkyrie. This pretty much fixes almost every problem there is.

In your opinion

People who I have discussed this with have only raised one complaint, namely that they feel the wings should count because they are 'there' or should count because they are afraid of not being able to see the valkyrie otherwise. To this, I say that the valkyrie is giagantic and elevated 8 inches off the table... show me a situation where the LOS to a valkyrie HINGES on the wings being targetable consistantly enough to warrent being forced to count the wings. I hate double standards, so saying 'well let the wings count for the things the opponent wants but not for everything else' is BS.

No we just wonder why you think the wing can't be targeted? Every other model if you can see part of it you can shoot it (excluding little twiddly bits) and if i can't see 50% it gets cover save

DevianID wrote:I hate double standards, so saying 'well let the wings count for the things the opponent wants but not for everything else' is BS.

What if the player with the Valkyrie and their opponent agree beforehand?

I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow the wings to be shot at, in exchange for say a compromise on deploying units and contesting objectives with the Valkryie's flight stand.

yeah,
you talk alot but have you read this thread?

DevianID wrote:...show me a situation where the LOS to a valkyrie HINGES on the wings being targetable consistantly enough to warrent being forced to count the wings...

Augustus on page 2 wrote:

Panic...

I meant a compromise on deploying within 2" of the hatch (which, if you include vertical distance, puts them in midair).


Also, I don't think using the wings of non-vehicle models is a valid comparison. That's nearly always in reference to biological wings, that could either fold up behind the model or be stretched out in the air. The wings of a Valkyrie are static. There's really only one way they're supposed to go on.

yeah,
plus I think the models they are refering to have wings as optional extras, daemon princes for example, but don't have the options in the box... so I could models massive great big dragon wings or tiny little fairy wings... I don't think they wanted to create a modeling for advantage situation...

In the situation where the one wing weapon on the valk can see around a wall, there are a few things.

One, in 3d (instead of the 2d top down) that brick wall would have to be, what, 12 inches tall and 12 inches wide, and completely solid (no windows). In short, a covered cinder block, right? In all my games, I have yet to see said cinderblock-sized terrain.

Two, that complaint, as others before me mentioned, has nothing to do with the Valkyrie specificly, and everything to do with the new rules for targeting and drawing LOS in 5th edition. Indeed it is possible for almost any unit, both vehicle and infantry, to be able to see and shoot a target, but not be seen in return.

As others have said, hull down tanks with the barrel sticking over a ruin or around a bend, can 'see' from the weapon barrel but cant be targeted as weapon barrels cant be shot at. For infantry, many windows through terrain that are not eye level will block the sheltering infantries 'eye's from seeing anything while not blocking the enemy from seeing an arm or torso.

Finally Panic, also note in your quote of me, I talk about consistancy... what is more consistantly going to cause a problem: the valk firing around a solid cinderblock-sized piece of terrain, or the Valk's huge wings completely dominating the table, preventing movement through them while not hindering any shooting from the guard and tanks underneath?

Imagine the area you could tankshock if the wings count!!!

As to concerns about the Eldar Grav Tanks... well I kind of have a hard time calling the front end of the grav tank 'wings'... are they described as wings somewhere in the eldar codex? I dont own that one.

As for where I contradict myself, Tri, its basicly to show why in my opinion wings shouldnt count... as if they did, you have the issues I list (among others).

By the way, what actual ingame problems would arise from not counting the wings, other than the unlikely situation where you can shoot around a corner? (not a new issue, nor a fault of only the valkyre)

Finally, I think choosing to ignore the rule that wings are explictly ignored for drawing LOS is close-minded. Yes, we all know that we use different targeting rules for vehicles and non-vehicles. However, as many people have pointed out, the Valkyrie, as an aircraft, has neither a hull nor a turret via any common defination of the word 'hull' and 'turret'. Thus explicitly by RAW, the Valkyrie has nothing to draw LOS to.

Coinsidently, this is the same as trying to draw LOS from a model with no eyes... the RAW says draw LOS from the eyes, some models with shooting attacks have no eyes, therefore by RAW they can not draw LOS to anything.

Now, we can compromise (which ensures no one is happy--everyone hates a compromise) and draw from the intent of LOS with non-vehicles, and not count the wings, or we can count the aircraft's fuselage as its hull (the closest analog to an aircraft's hull is its fuselage, which means you cant target the wings as wings arnt hull/fuselage), or we can count the entire model, wings and all. If we count the entire model, then we get all the issues such as being unable to disembark from any of the access points, et all.

The best option, of course, is to have 2 people discuss what's what before the game and come to a consensus, but in the event of a tourney such as the OP presents, finding a proper solution in the midst of a game simply isnt going to happen.

DevianID wrote:
As to concerns about the Eldar Grav Tanks... well I kind of have a hard time calling the front end of the grav tank 'wings'... are they described as wings somewhere in the eldar codex? I dont own that one.

I do, they're not mentioned as wing but by an amazing coincidence nether does the Valkyrie/ Vendetta. You have applied real world logic to the game and choose to call them wings because it is called an aircraft. I call them hull upon which weapons are mounted ... could also call them sponsons.

The hull is the outer body of a tank.

A falcon's "wings" are part of an armored body that holds equipment inside it. In that sense, whether they're wings is irrelevant, they're still part of a tank hull.

However, if you treat a Valkyrie like you would a tank, you end up with the fuselage having the same role as a tank's hull; it's well armored, and it protects what's inside it. The wings of the Valkyrie, however, are thin, with their "cargo" mounted on the outside. They're not a shell, or a husk, and thus they don't fit the definition of the word as well.

DevianID wrote:
Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views.

Warhammer 40,000 is a 3D game.

And as to your other points, did you seriously read the rest of the thread, or any of the other Valkyrie discussions on DakkaDakka?

DevianID wrote:
Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views.

you're also saying that infantry models inside of a ruin can't stand on a higher floor directly above each other?

@Devian Lets clear up a few things quickly. The valk/ vendetta isnt an aircraft, its a skimmer. ( in the fluff the valk is called an aircraft, but its also called a few other things -- and its defined as a skimmer in its entry) So applying aircraft definitions isnt terribly useful. Also, a the valk isnt a tank so dont worry about tank shocks, since it cant do that. And if the valk is immobilized and the stand removed there is no problem with enemy models being in contact with the hull .... models get into contact all the time during assaults.

Models on flying bases have always been a problem for assaults, the falcon/ wave serpent base is very difficult to move into base contact from the front of the model, since the stand is only under the "hull" (back portion) and the "wings" (front portion) hang far out from the base. Would this mean that eldar vehicles are immune to assault from the front?


Also, how does this term "wing" get applied to the hull extensions on the valk? The only time the word wing is used in the codex regarding the valk is when speaking about a unit/ wing of valks. To me the weapon hard points of the valk/ vedetta are clearly on the hull. If weapons hard points are not always part of the hull, then pardon me while I go move my las cannons onto the corners of my new 12" wide and 8" high dozer blade. If the eldar vehicles obviously dont have wings then just as obviously the valk doesnt have wings either. The IG codex never describes the valk as having wings.



Sliggoth

As far as I can tell, Eldar Skimmers do not have wings to discount. You can try and label them such all day long, but that's no more legitimate than calling them gravitational tuning forks.

Why is there any question about whether or not units can move underneith the wings. Remember that skimmers are considered to be hugging the ground, no matter how tall of a base they have. So if you are to assault a valk you move to touch any part of the vehicle, be it the wings, tail, hull, or any other part people want to claim is not really part of the model.

There are no rules to say that skimmers count as "hugging the ground."

None.

You are going to quote the line that says that you must set skimmers down on the table at the end of their move, but that does not mean you remove them from the base, as you are only allowed to remove them from their base if they are immobilized or wrecked. It simply means that you can't hold them 1 foot in the air for better LoS.

The rule for moving under the wings is the rule that says you can't come within 1" of an enemy unit, and for all vehicles you measure that 1" from the hull. Even if the wings count as "hull" (which I think they do) they are high enough off the table that you can move under them without coming 1" from them.

unless you're a titan

Orkeosaurus wrote:The hull is the outer body of a tank.

A falcon's "wings" are part of an armored body that holds equipment inside it. In that sense, whether they're wings is irrelevant, they're still part of a tank hull.

However, if you treat a Valkyrie like you would a tank, you end up with the fuselage having the same role as a tank's hull; it's well armored, and it protects what's inside it. The wings of the Valkyrie, however, are thin, with their "cargo" mounted on the outside. They're not a shell, or a husk, and thus they don't fit the definition of the word as well.

Lordhat wrote: As far as I can tell, Eldar Skimmers do not have wings to discount. You can try and label them such all day long, but that's no more legitimate than calling them gravitational tuning forks.

Firstly I'm not try to make Eldar Skimmers "wings" unshootable I'm just pointing out that it has as much right as the Valkyrie to call them wings.

Now rightly every ones gone "No its doesn't matter" , "Its Armoured " ect ect and basicly smashed the idea of elder Skimmers having wings.... Trouble is you can take all of those arguments and place them on to the Valkyrie which is my point ....

Nether has "wings" unless you label them as such and if you do they both have them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:
Also, how does this term "wing" get applied to the hull extensions on the valk? The only time the word wing is used in the codex regarding the valk is when speaking about a unit/ wing of valks. To me the weapon hard points of the valk/ vedetta are clearly on the hull. If weapons hard points are not always part of the hull, then pardon me while I go move my las cannons onto the corners of my new 12" wide and 8" high dozer blade. If the eldar vehicles obviously dont have wings then just as obviously the valk doesnt have wings either. The IG codex never describes the valk as having wings.

ha thanks my point exactly ...

Tri wrote:

DevianID wrote:As to concerns about the Eldar Grav Tanks... well I kind of have a hard time calling the front end of the grav tank 'wings'... are they described as wings somewhere in the eldar codex? I dont own that one.

I do, they're not mentioned as wing but by an amazing coincidence nether does the Valkyrie/ Vendetta. You have applied real world logic to the game and choose to call them wings because it is called an aircraft. I call them hull upon which weapons are mounted ... could also call them sponsons.

And according to the rulebook, sponsons are not part of the hull, and thus can not be targeted.

whitedragon wrote:

DevianID wrote:Second, no model may occupy the same space as another model--this HAS to refer to 2d top-down views.

Warhammer 40,000 is a 3D game.

This point is often arguable, as in right now. With the exception of terrain and models occupying different levels of that terrain. Skimmers have been (in my experience) represented to occupy the area that they cover on the level they are placed. So in an open field a skimmer would occupy to the ground, place one on top of a ruin, and they occupy to the level of the ruin they were placed, but not above or below.

whitedragon wrote:And as to your other points, did you seriously read the rest of the thread, or any of the other Valkyrie discussions on DakkaDakka?

Why do people like to ask this? This thread alone has spread out so much and resolved practically nothing that is has brought up, how can you even think about trying the throw this at someone unless you are just trying to be a prick? I am not calling you a prick, as you probably haven't realized the prickish nature of your comment.

@ Sliggoth : Hush, the grown-ups are talking.

The best point thus far about moving under models is about what happens when the Valkyrie becomes immobile. Models can not become trapped beneath, as they are not supposed to be occupying the same space, or else you could in fact have models standing on top of tanks, or tanks on top of tanks, or skimmers on top of tanks or other skimmers..... see where this is going? There is no 'underneath' other vehicles, that would be occupying the same space.

@ Tri : Yeah, those swooping sections of the Eldar grav tanks aren't wings, what with all the anti-grav pads and guts in them. The valk wings don't have anything like that, they don't even have an airfoil or raised section to help them aloft, and as potential as those spinny things at the end are for being the lifting agents for the Valkyrie.... I am still not convinced. It seems that Valkyries are held aloft across the battlefield either by some other means contained in the hull (not the wings) or by a telescoping translucent X shaped support that slides along the surface of the ground. Oh these grim, dark days and the many wonders that exist in them.

Quite simply, the outline of the Falcon/Wave Serpent has been accepted for nigh twenty years now, or at least for the over ten I have been playing. To start arguing about it, or how it applies to new models, is simply impractical from a 'working with GW' stand point. The Valkyrie has broken all the rules for vehicle design that GW has worked with. There is nothing like it in the standard game and we have to re-think how to apply rules to it. After playing with it for a while now, simply counting the wings as untargetable is the simplest conclusion, rather than counting them as part of the 'hull' and dealing with the rammifications from there, such as models occupying blah blah blah, more arguments.

Skinnattittar You have completely missed my point ... no where in ether does the word wing come up and it madness that ether should be treated differently. Unless defined other wise all of a vehicle is Hull. To play any other way is to ask for trouble as people define there own rules.

@ Tri : Yeah, those swooping sections of the Eldar grav tanks aren't wings, what with all the anti-grav pads and guts in them. The valk wings don't have anything like that, they don't even have an airfoil or raised section to help them aloft, and as potential as those spinny things at the end are for being the lifting agents for the Valkyrie

that's fluff not rules ... and if you want a fluff fight ... Valkyrie wing thruster are vitally important with out them the Valkyrie is prone to rolling over a crashing.

Tri wrote:Skinnattittar You have completely missed my point ... no where in ether does the word wing come up and it madness that ether should be treated differently. Unless defined other wise all of a vehicle is Hull. To play any other way is to ask for trouble as people define there own rules.

Wings are defined only when attached to non-vehicles.

Even Apoc (with bona fide flyers) does not touch the term. LOS is to (and from) the model.

Any other use is RAI.

shrug

@skin Thanks for ignoring my arguements and instead just making a personal attack, very adult behaviour indeed
And could you quote the rules page where it says sponsons cant be targetted?

And once again, there is nothing in the codex about the valk having wings. The valk certainly may look as if it has aircraft wings, but in 40k the only defined wings are the biological wings that various infantry and MC can have. People use the term wings to describe the hull extensions of the valk but it is completely incorrect to use the term "wing" in 40k terms. In the 40k rules we are told to ignore wings for purposes of determining LOS, has anyone considered that perhaps GW didnt use the term wings for the valk on purpose?

For the shooting at vehicles rule we are allowed to ignore a vehicle's gun barrels, antennas and decorative banner poles. The flimsiest of the flimsy parts of the vehicle in other words. By RAW we certainly cant ignore something as massive as the valks "wings" and since these said "wings" cover a tremendously larger space than any barrel, antenna or pole it would appear that RAI would also not let us ignore them as well.

As skinnattitar so helpfully pointed out we already have firm precedence for counting all of a vehicle's main body components as part of the hull, we have been counting the eldar "wings" as part of the hull for a decade. This would that RAW, RAI and game playing precedence all would have us count the valk as having a very large hull.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:And could you quote the rules page where it says sponsons cant be targetted?

And could YOU quote the rules page where it says I can't coat your models in Gasoline and Set fire to them?

The Rules don't work like that. Just wanted to point that out.