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.

I think he's trying to explain you what the hull actually is, but I could be wrong since I haven't followed this discussion anymore.

Fearspect wrote:I'm going to just throw it out there that similarly to some others that have posted, the TO of a tournament I am participating in next month ruled that so long as the base is on the table, that is sufficient for movement on.

The thoughts behind it were two-fold:
1) This is the only model that is actually negatively affected by this rule in this way in the entire game. The commonly held belief (at least locally) is that it was not designed that way to prevent it shooting all weapons coming in from reserve, but simply to look cool. The feeling is that this rule was brought in for situations like tanks immobilizing on the way in from reserves, and was never intended to discuss skimmers. Again, just a local opinion. They could have just as easily have built it as a wider, less long helicopter and we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Not true. Land Raiders and monolithes are technically affected as well for the same principle (parts of the model hanging over the table edge).

That rule also screws over 40mm+ sized models when dealing with difficult terrain rolls but that's another matter entirely.

"Hull" is clearly defined in the BRB, the only things on the Valk model that is not targetable/ doesn't "take up space" is the Aerial on the nose, and any Lascannon barrels that stick out from the wings(on the Vendetta) Everything else falls under the BRB definition of "Hull".

Starsdawn; consensus on angling has already been reached: So long as nothing is cut or altered it is not MFA. Also, until you get to the extreme angles of 60*+ your Valk/Vendetta will still be more than 6" long, and when you do reach the extreme angle you have a 2" range LOS in front of your model.

It can be done, but you lose the exact benefit you were looking for.

I guess the best way to frame my thinking would be:

If the size of the plane was a design such that it could not come in under 6" from reserve (along with why its wings cannot be over other models), why didn't they provide a base shaped exactly like the plane from a top-down view? Or, at the very least, provided a dinner plate shaped base to represent it on the battlefield in this manner?

Um, GW likes std size bases?

Also the skimmer rules distinguish between the Base and "hull", and the base is used for very little.

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

For the marines, you did not actually modify anything..yes you chose the low models, but they are "stock models"..for the vendetta, you actually did something else to force the model to be angled, since a "stock" model is not posed that way...which for me is the difference....

It is a "gray" area for sure, and to be honest would depend on the interpretation of the local group...

Well, how would folks in Galleria and/or RHGC interpret it?

No, I'm not trying to use it. I'm just curious.

Similar to what I have posted....and since I have a "say" when it comes to our local group (meaning RHGC) that is how I will argue for it...

Kommissar Kel wrote:Um, GW likes std size bases?

Also the skimmer rules distinguish between the Base and "hull", and the base is used for very little.

This.

Eldar grav tanks have been four times (or so) the surface area of their bases since they first came out in the 90s. They've always used the hull/body of the tank for entering the table and for difficult terrain. The Valk/Vend/SR are no different, for most purposes (except the specific exceptions GW gave them to deal with their height). Just bigger.

According to GW, flyers are ok if they stick over the edge of the table, as long as the base is completely on the table. I was down warhammer world and had a chat with a bunch of peeps. If you want 'official GW' I might be able to get that too but it will take a few months as i don't see people from the design team much.

If you know anyone who can change the FAQ, feel free to talk to them. I'm going to continue playing Valks/Vend/SRs exactly the same way I've been playing Falcons and Wave Serpents and every other skimmer for over a decade.

Right now the FAQ clearly says the whole model has to get onto the table, and that the edge of the table is the end of the world, so no unit or model can overlap it. For skimmers, the base is never the whole model. The base is almost totally irrelevant. The only times it is used at all is when sheer height prevents the hull from being properly used as it's supposed to be. In all other cases, the model's body is all that matters. It's been that way at least since 3rd came out in 1998. Maybe longer.