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.

JBW wrote:I get it, you say everything, I say the base.

Basically the core of your argument. This is in direct contradiction to what WH40k rules say, so there isn't really a need to discuss this anymore.

The whole thing has nothing to with measurement. Just with your model being on the table. Not the hull, not the base, some parts minus others. The model. Everything you glued to that thing that makes up your vehicle. If any part of that is not on the playing field, the model is not on the playing field. In addition, the rules even tell us to ignore the base, so figuring anything out by using the base unless explicitly told to do so, is breaking the rules.

*Sigh*, I completely agree with you. It has nothing to do with measurement. And believe it or not, I've said this many times over the post # of posts. The discussion sometimes is derailed by side debates that need to be cleared before further core topic discussion can continue.

Where we agree to disagree is simply that the whole model is on the table completely if the portion of it that can be on the table is completely on the table.

The FAQs have not been updated to clarify this FAQ that people are hanging their hat on.

Figuring anything out by using the hull unless explicitly told to do so is breaking the rules. Where does it say an effect occurs based on the hull. This is the core discussion of the topic.

And if my model is on the table anywhere else other than the edge, you would not argue that the model is on the table, so if it's near the edge, it is still on the table. The discussion is still regarding 'completely onto' or else destroyed.

Am I completely onto the table if I'm in the middle? I can be over everything that is not under the base. Where does it say that my model is destroyed if it is hanging. Where does it give permission to destroy it? I know this is a bit of DSICSIC (doesn't say i can't so i can). But it does bring up the discussion of whether it is destroyed.

It's really just a difference of opinion. And interpretation of maybe RAI.

These models have been a pain to play ever since they came out, and now they've cleared up so much with the latest FAQs. Yet somehow there's still confusion regarding whether the huge models can be close to the edge of the table. Well if the gaming surface is supposed to 6x4 then I intend to use all of the 6x4.

Guess I'll just take the model off the stand until it's time to measure distances or shoot from/to it. That way it's not hanging over the edge. Everything else is dealt with from the base.

Its not a difference of opinion; we have rules that back our position, you dont.

JBW wrote:*Sigh*, I completely agree with you. It has nothing to do with measurement. And believe it or not, I've said this many times over the post # of posts. The discussion sometimes is derailed by side debates that need to be cleared before further core topic discussion can continue.

Where we agree to disagree is simply that the whole model is on the table completely if the portion of it that can be on the table is completely on the table.

You are told to ignore the base to figure out whether you are on the table or off the table. If your claim that the actual model is ignored, too, all large skimmers would always be destroyed when arriving from reserve, as they can never move onto the table.

The FAQs have not been updated to clarify this FAQ that people are hanging their hat on.

Figuring anything out by using the hull unless explicitly told to do so is breaking the rules. Where does it say an effect occurs based on the hull. This is the core discussion of the topic.

Nope, it's not breaking the rules. The hull is part of the model and you are not told to ignore it, unlike the base. You are told to check whether your model is on the table, including it's entire hull. No part of the hull, no decorative elements, no gun barrels and no dozer blades may not, partially or entirely, be off the table to any extend for any vehicle. Including those on a flying stand.

And if my model is on the table anywhere else other than the edge, you would not argue that the model is on the table, so if it's near the edge, it is still on the table. The discussion is still regarding 'completely onto' or else destroyed.

Yup, it's still on the table if parts of it are not. But not completely, which is what matters. The rules do not tell the vehicle to move onto the table, but to move completely onto the table. Otherwise, fireworks.

Am I completely onto the table if I'm in the middle? I can be over everything that is not under the base. Where does it say that my model is destroyed if it is hanging. Where does it give permission to destroy it? I know this is a bit of DSICSIC (doesn't say i can't so i can). But it does bring up the discussion of whether it is destroyed.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

There is the permission to destroy it and remove it from play.

It's really just a difference of opinion. And interpretation of maybe RAI.

These models have been a pain to play ever since they came out, and now they've cleared up so much with the latest FAQs. Yet somehow there's still confusion regarding whether the huge models can be close to the edge of the table. Well if the gaming surface is supposed to 6x4 then I intend to use all of the 6x4.

If your wing is hanging over the edge, you are using more than that. A big skimmer may not hang off the edge any more than a small skimmer. Or for that matter, any model. I'd love parking my battlewagons with everything but the deff rolla hanging off the table vs demons, but can't do that either.

Guess I'll just take the model off the stand until it's time to measure distances or shoot from/to it. That way it's not hanging over the edge. Everything else is dealt with from the base.

That would be illegal. The rules require models to be attached to their bases that were supplied with them. You may only remove bases from wrecked or immobilized skimmers. "Everything else is dealt with from the base." would also be incorrect and not what the rules tell you.

JBW wrote:*Sigh*, I completely agree with you. It has nothing to do with measurement. And believe it or not, I've said this many times over the post # of posts. The discussion sometimes is derailed by side debates that need to be cleared before further core topic discussion can continue.

Where we agree to disagree is simply that the whole model is on the table completely if the portion of it that can be on the table is completely on the table.

The FAQs have not been updated to clarify this FAQ that people are hanging their hat on.

Figuring anything out by using the hull unless explicitly told to do so is breaking the rules. Where does it say an effect occurs based on the hull. This is the core discussion of the topic.

And if my model is on the table anywhere else other than the edge, you would not argue that the model is on the table, so if it's near the edge, it is still on the table. The discussion is still regarding 'completely onto' or else destroyed.

Am I completely onto the table if I'm in the middle? I can be over everything that is not under the base. Where does it say that my model is destroyed if it is hanging. Where does it give permission to destroy it? I know this is a bit of DSICSIC (doesn't say i can't so i can). But it does bring up the discussion of whether it is destroyed.

It's really just a difference of opinion. And interpretation of maybe RAI.

There is another issue with playing as you are suggesting: Lets say you have your flyer with a third of it hanging off of the table, as you have suggested. It gets shot and immobilized. It is then dropped immediately to the playing surface in the same position which it was in, which in turn would mean that a third of it is off of the table. This would effectively destroy it. Whatever rules it had as a skimmer/valk/vendetta are gone as soon as the flying stand/base is removed. And I have not seen anyone argue that normal vehicles can hang off of the table.

These models have been a pain to play ever since they came out, and now they've cleared up so much with the latest FAQs. Yet somehow there's still confusion regarding whether the huge models can be close to the edge of the table. Well if the gaming surface is supposed to 6x4 then I intend to use all of the 6x4.

Guess I'll just take the model off the stand until it's time to measure distances or shoot from/to it. That way it's not hanging over the edge. Everything else is dealt with from the base

No disagreement with you here. Unfortunately, there are no rules for flyers in standard 40K, only for skimmers; and as such they follow all the rules that other skimmers follow (with one or two additional exceptions). TBH, they are not that much bigger than a hammerhead or monolith, and somehow those models are still able to function within the confines of the puny 6x4' table.

JBW, you are wrong. The game space for a standard mission is 6 feet by 4 feet. If you have a model occupying space outside of that, it is not completely in the play area and is destroyed. Physical contact with the table is not needed for every single bit of the model, it simply has to occupy only space inside the borders defined at the beginning of the game.

You do not have permission to have a model occupy any amount of space outside of the play area once it has come into play. What we do have is permission to destroy models/units that are not completely in the play area.

-cgmckenzie

PS-BTW, Jidmah, decorative elements can be outside of the play space because the model does not occupy that area. Vehicles only occupy the space of their hulls, so since no measurements can happen to the decorative items anyway, they can be outside of the play area as long as all the weapons and hull is inside.

Eldanar wrote:There is another issue with playing as you are suggesting: Lets say you have your flyer with a third of it hanging off of the table, as you have suggested. It gets shot and immobilized. It is then dropped immediately to the playing surface in the same position which it was in, which in turn would mean that a third of it is off of the table. This would effectively destroy it. Whatever rules it had as a skimmer/valk/vendetta are gone as soon as the flying stand/base is removed. And I have not seen anyone argue that normal vehicles can hang off of the table.

No disagreement with you here. Unfortunately, there are no rules for flyers in standard 40K, only for skimmers; and as such they follow all the rules that other skimmers follow (with one or two additional exceptions). TBH, they are not that much bigger than a hammerhead or monolith, and somehow those models are still able to function within the confines of the puny 6x4' table.

Check your MRB regarding an immobilized skimmer, that's not entirely what it says and you're cherry-pick'n.

I see the point with the Hammerhead and Monolith, but you can actually assault these at the hull and are required, considering where the flying base cannot be reached. This is not the same as the 'Flyer' types.

Do you feel that the 6x4 is confining? I do too, especially since they put this invisible box around it, or is it a dome?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:JBW, you are wrong. The game space for a standard mission is 6 feet by 4 feet. If you have a model occupying space outside of that, it is not completely in the play area and is destroyed. Physical contact with the table is not needed for every single bit of the model, it simply has to occupy only space inside the borders defined at the beginning of the game.

Your error IMHO is that the Model is on the same plane (no pun intended) as the table. It is not obviously, and therefore not destroyed. Oh the issue with playing a 3D game on a 2D board? Wait it's not 2D the Flyer can't be inside a wall of a tall building. But yet somehow the Flyer is destroyed if its hull occupies space over the edge of the world.

You can assault large skimmers at their hull, too. There is a legendary tale a friend of mine tells of my warboss jumping onto his vendetta from the second level of a ruin and punching it out of the sky.

Your error IMHO is that the Model is on the same plane (no pun intended) as the table. It is not obviously, and therefore not destroyed. Oh the issue with playing a 3D game on a 2D board? Wait it's not 2D the Flyer can't be inside a wall of a tall building. But yet somehow the Flyer is destroyed if its hull occupies space over the edge of the world.

Your error is, that you are not playing WH40k, but try to roleplay a battle. Real life has absolutely nothing to do with how the game is played. If any part of your model is not on the table, it is not completely on the table. Unless you can prove, by providing rules, that a Stormraven may have parts of the table while a landraider may not, you are wrong.

JBW wrote:

Eldanar wrote:There is another issue with playing as you are suggesting: Lets say you have your flyer with a third of it hanging off of the table, as you have suggested. It gets shot and immobilized. It is then dropped immediately to the playing surface in the same position which it was in, which in turn would mean that a third of it is off of the table. This would effectively destroy it. Whatever rules it had as a skimmer/valk/vendetta are gone as soon as the flying stand/base is removed. And I have not seen anyone argue that normal vehicles can hang off of the table.

No disagreement with you here. Unfortunately, there are no rules for flyers in standard 40K, only for skimmers; and as such they follow all the rules that other skimmers follow (with one or two additional exceptions). TBH, they are not that much bigger than a hammerhead or monolith, and somehow those models are still able to function within the confines of the puny 6x4' table.

Check your MRB regarding an immobilized skimmer, that's not entirely what it says and you're cherry-pick'n.

I see the point with the Hammerhead and Monolith, but you can actually assault these at the hull and are required, considering where the flying base cannot be reached. This is not the same as the 'Flyer' types.

Do you feel that the 6x4 is confining? I do too, especially since they put this invisible box around it, or is it a dome?

Spoken like a true Ork player. When I started playing the various GW games back in the early '90's, the store I played at used standard 8x4' tables. IIRC, there was no standard playing table size for either 40K or WHFB (which is what I actually learned first).

Some models, like a greater daemon (particularly a FW model), etc., are possibly large enough to physically come in contact with a flyer even on its base, so that argument doesn't really fly completely (ha ha, I made a pun ).

I am aware that glued on bases, etc., do not have to be removed. However, I have yet to see a glued on flying base to a valk, vendetta, etc. I am sure there are some out there, but I have not seen them yet. Then again this reasoning provides yet another rationale for why hanging over the table edge should not be allowed for skimmer/flyers with glued on bases, because it would provide an unfair advantage in circumstances where it has become immobilized while over the table edge.

Jidmah wrote:You can assault large skimmers at their hull, too. There is a legendary tale a friend of mine tells of my warboss jumping onto his vendetta from the second level of a ruin and punching it out of the sky.

That is so epic and cool, I almost want to agree with you just for comment alone. But the rest of your post escapes me 'completely'.

Eldanar wrote:Some models, like a greater daemon (particularly a FW model), etc., are possibly large enough to physically come in contact with a flyer even on its base, so that argument doesn't really fly completely (ha ha, I made a pun ).

I am aware that glued on bases, etc., do not have to be removed. However, I have yet to see a glued on flying base to a valk, vendetta, etc. I am sure there are some out there, but I have not seen them yet. Then again this reasoning provides yet another rationale for why hanging over the table edge should not be allowed for skimmer/flyers with glued on bases, because it would provide an unfair advantage in circumstances where it has become immobilized while over the table edge.

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

The true fallacy of your position comes from the firing rules.

Your "logic" comes undone because a scattering blast, with its hole over your hull, could automiss because it is off the table.

The true inanity of your position really should be apparent by now. You have no rules support; NONE whatsoever, for your position.

JBW wrote:

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

Hence, you're note ignoring the base. The rules specifically tell you to ignore the base. Why are you dodging this?

It isn't an issue about creating an unfair advantage - it is an issue of following the rules. It does create an unfair advantage when Reserves come around, so establishing an understanding in something as simple as Deployment, I thought we'd have a foundation to discuss more complex issues. I honestly didn't think that understanding that a model may not hang off the board edge would be this difficult. A terminator can't do it, a land raider can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space of where a base would be instead) and a skimmer can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space where the base would be, since you're told to specifically ignore the base for measurement/movement, etc.).

You have this stalwart defense about the base, but it is the biggest flaw in the argument, because you're told to ignore it.

JBW wrote:

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

Ahhh...but could my model get into position to make that assault to begin with? Therein is the rub, and what is intrinsically unfair about playing with these large models in this fashion. If you are 2-3" further back over your table edge, then that is 2-3" more my models will have to travel in order to reach you so as to make an assault. No one has argued that somehow they are losing part of their 6" assault; rather, it is now more difficult to move up to get in range to be able to make that 6" assault. You are trying to minimize the space your model occupies by moving part of it off table so as to protect it, and this presents an unfair advantage. Basically, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

However, you have presented nothing in the rules to support your position. All you have argued are semantics, and empy references to non-existent RAI, but no actual rules. At this point I can only surmise that you are arguing merely to argue...

Eldanar wrote:

JBW wrote:

For the record folks I've posted in the past that I know larger models could potentially come in contact with the hull. It doesn't matter whether you've experienced a glued model before, only that the rules cover it. And me having my base at the back edge doesn't prevent any more of an unfair advantage than a Land Raider putting it's rear against the table edge. Nothing has changed, what could assault before still can, and with the same effectiveness.

Ahhh...but could my model get into position to make that assault to begin with? Therein is the rub, and what is intrinsically unfair about playing with these large models in this fashion. If you are 2-3" further back over your table edge, then that is 2-3" more my models will have to travel in order to reach you so as to make an assault. No one has argued that somehow they are losing part of their 6" assault; rather, it is now more difficult to move up to get in range to be able to make that 6" assault. You are trying to minimize the space your model occupies by moving part of it off table so as to protect it, and this presents an unfair advantage. Basically, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

However, you have presented nothing in the rules to support your position. All you have argued are semantics, and empy references to non-existent RAI, but no actual rules. At this point I can only surmise that you are arguing merely to argue...

Really, have you not read anything before your posts? You must be referring to my last post only. Sure, so my last post didn't have any quoted FAQ MRB. It's all covered before.

Granted I could glue the stand and the model so that I would get and advantage, but there are already tourney rules to cover this. If a majority of your models are only going to be able to assault the base anyways, what difference does it make. And it doesn't tell me to ignore the base for what we are discussing, it say that you assault the base and the hull. Surely I don't need to post the reference over and over again, but I will. Just let me know. You're arguing that there is some advantage to not having access to the hull when you don't typically have access anyways. The models that could reach the hull have even more access than the models that are vertically challenged; there's more to assault up there folks. Hence nothing has changed; the only ground your losing is in your argument . You say it's unfair to have to move an perceived extra distance, but yet you want the 'Flyer' to somehow be required to move further on the table than the rules require. Where's the cake? Cause If I'm eating it then someone else has already taken a bite.

puma713 wrote:Hence, you're note ignoring the base. The rules specifically tell you to ignore the base. Why are you dodging this?

It isn't an issue about creating an unfair advantage - it is an issue of following the rules. It does create an unfair advantage when Reserves come around, so establishing an understanding in something as simple as Deployment, I thought we'd have a foundation to discuss more complex issues. I honestly didn't think that understanding that a model may not hang off the board edge would be this difficult. A terminator can't do it, a land raider can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space of where a base would be instead) and a skimmer can't do it (because it's hull occupies the space where the base would be, since you're told to specifically ignore the base for measurement/movement, etc.).

You have this stalwart defense about the base, but it is the biggest flaw in the argument, because you're told to ignore it.

How am I supposed to ignore the base? From Assaulting, Deploying, Contesting, or even placement in terrain, or even better and the solution to this what portion of the table it occupies, and what portion in volume essentially it occupies vertically. The Flyer type's hull does not occupy the space that the base would be. That's just silly . It has a base.

Can a DE Raider move so that its hull would be over a model? No. Can a 'Flyer'? Yes. You just said that a skimmer's hull occupies where the base would be. But this doesn't apply to 'Flyer' types. You can have models under the hull of the Flyer. So your point is mute. It's the base that determines when and where it is on the table. And just like every other model where it comes in contact with other models allows an effect or action occur.

You can keep your perceived intellect jabs to yourself, as I too don't understand why this is so difficult for others to understand, but I'm actively engaging it and attempting to resolve it.

JBW, you have no rules backing you up. Plain and simple, you are wrong. Period. To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, enjoy a plethora of rule quotes from literally every instance referring to the large oval flying base.

All vehicles occupy the space of their hull. See pg 56 BGB under 'Vehicles & Measuring Distances":

"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from the hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

That specifically says that measuring to the base cannot be used when dealing with vehicles. For dealing with skimmers specifically, cast your gaze upon pg 71 BGB under "Measuring Distances":

"Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have a transparent 'flying base' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exception being the vehicle's weapons, access points, and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base, or both."

Again, all measurements, except assaulting, are put to the hull. The FAQ's do have a couple exceptions:

Imperial Guard FAQ
"Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base."

Follow all previous rules, except models may now disembark/embark from the base and the base is used to measure for contesting objectives.

Main Rule Book FAQ

"Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself."

For taking terrain tests/landing on other models, the base is used to determine if the model is in difficult/dangerous/impassable terrain or on another model.

"Q: Are a vehicle’s wings considered to be part of its
hull? (p60)
A: Yes."

Wings are hull, thus are shootable and, if hanging over the edge of the board, destroy the skimmer.

Q: If a skimmer on a large oval flying base is wrecked,
and its base is completely surrounded by enemy
models, are all embarked models killed? (p71)
A: Yes."

The base is used for emergency disembarking when wrecked.

"Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
A: Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly
specify that they can. All good wargamers know that
the edge of the table is the end of the world!"

You cannot move off the table in any fashion. Since all distances to vehicles, except where noted above, are measured to the hull, moving hull off the table counts as moving the vehicle off the table.

If you don't care to read all that, here is the reader's digest version:

Measure all distances to skimmers on a large oval flying base to the hull with the following exceptions:

1)Contesting an OBJ is measured to the base
2)Disembarking/embarking is measured to the base
3)Assaulting can be measured to the base or the hull, which ever the model can contact.
4)Whether or not the model is in difficult/dangerous/impassable terrain is determined by base placement.
5)Shooting from the skimmer is done from weapon mounts
6)Emergency disembarking is measured to the base

FYI, nowhere does it say that the area off the table is impassable terrain; we are simply told that we cannot be there. This matters because skimmers can land on IT if they pass a DT test. Since it is not classified as a type of terrain and we only have the blanket statement "You cannot be there", we cannot have anything there, even if the base of the model is completely on the table.

So, in that long list of 6 exceptions to measuring to the hull on skimmers on a large oval flying base, is there any one that says 'table edge' in it? If not, you are not allowed to use the base for that measurement.

-cgmckenzie

BTW, stop calling them 'flyers'. There is no such vehicle classification; they are merely skimmers on a large oval flying base. I have made that mistake myself out of laziness in the past but that is wrong. Stop doing it.

JBW wrote:
How am I supposed to ignore the base? From Assaulting, Deploying, Contesting, or even placement in terrain

Correct so far.

JBW wrote: or even better and the solution to this what portion of the table it occupies, and what portion in volume essentially it occupies vertically.

What page number is this outlined on, so I can read what you're reading?

JBW wrote: The Flyer type's hull does not occupy the space that the base would be.

Except that the BRB tells you that it does.

JBW wrote: It has a base.

That you are explicitly, unwaveringly, unarguably and indismissibly, told to ignore.

JBW wrote:Can a DE Raider move so that its hull would be over a model? No. Can a 'Flyer'? Yes. You just said that a skimmer's hull occupies where the base would be. But this doesn't apply to 'Flyer' types. You can have models under the hull of the Flyer. So your point is mute. It's the base that determines when and where it is on the table. And just like every other model where it comes in contact with other models allows an effect or action occur.

Okay. Say, while you're at it, what page of the rulebook are Flyers on? I just want to read up on them, since mine seems to be missing that heading.

JBW wrote: but I'm actively engaging it and attempting to resolve it.

No, you're not. You're repeating what you believe to be correct and making up rules to back it up. In the paragraph above, you said, "But this doesn't apply to 'Flyer' types." That is completely made up. There are no 'Flyer' types in standard 40K. The Stormraven is not a 'flyer' - it is a (Fast, Skimmer). The Valkyrie is not a 'flyer' - it is a (Fast, Skimmer). We can't "actively engage and try to resolve" when you're referencing rules that do not exist and ignoring rules that do.




Jeff, I'm not trying to take jabs - I'm frustrated with the conversation because you're not even acknowledging the rules that people are presenting. No one is twisting rules or pulling rules out of thin air. The rules themselves say that you ignore the base, but in all of your examples, you're not ignoring the base. I understand that you don't agree with the way it is written, but the RAW is that you ignore it. But to simply ignore this rule means we can't have a mature, constructive conversation.

Let's get back on track here, cause Tommy is frustrated, and apparently I'm not producing a mature conversation regarding the skimmer on a large oval flying base. Thanks for dropping in. Should we go back to what part of the model is on/off the table? I'm sorry I thread jacked, but there's already a thread discussing that. Otherwise, calm down, I'll play it however you need me to play it, ok?

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

What I read you saying is this.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move over the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

That's what I'm discussing here, and unless you can show me how I've broken some rule, then I have completely moved onto the board with what was provided to me via GW.

I hope that helps everyone. Because no one has addressed my rules quote. I've spent the last 5 pages addressing every tiny blurp ill interpreted rules mention. And I still have no conclusion why people think that the skimmer on a large oval flying base would be destroyed. Now why don't you address this and stop attempting to derail the point.

You be better to stick with I must deploy in my deployment zone argument.

JBW wrote:Thanks for dropping in.

Have you missed all my posts over the past couple of pages?

JBW wrote:Let's get back on track here, cause Tommy is frustrated, and apparently I'm not producing a mature conversation regarding the skimmer on a large oval flying base. Should we go back to what part of the model is on/off the table? I'm sorry I thread jacked, but there's already a thread discussing that. Otherwise, calm down, I'll play it however you need me to play it, ok?

I'm calm. Frustrated =/= hostile. Anyone that I've pointed this out to has gladly moved their Valkyrie's onto the board 12". The reason they don't fight about it, is because they understand that it is the correct way to play the game.

JBW wrote:

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

What I read you saying is this.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move over the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

That's what I'm discussing here, and unless you can show me how I've broken some rule, then I have completely moved onto the board with what was provided to me via GW.

And the crux of your entire problem. There are no dimensions in 40K. There were in 4th Edition. They removed them with the advent of 5th Edition. Since there are no dimensions, then a Valkyrie 50 feet in the air is in the same place as one that is sitting on the ground. They occupy the same space, no matter what physics tells you. The reason they do is because the rules say that they do.

JBW wrote:And I still have no conclusion why people think that the skimmer on a large oval flying base would be destroyed.

Okay. It's taken 5 pages, so I don't think explaining it again is going to help. Nevetheless: A skimmer is a vehicle that occupys the space it's hull takes up, just like a land raider. The reason for this is because the rules tell you to ignore the base except for a handful of situations. You are never, ever, ever, ever, ever given permission to measure movement from the base. So, if you cannot measure movement from the base (because you're told to ignore it, and you're not told that you can not ignore it for movement), then you must measure from the hull. If you measure from the hull and find that you do not have enough movement to get the vehicle "onto" the table (referring back to the fact that skimmer is 2D and it takes up the space that it's hull occupies), then the skimmer is destroyed because part of its hull (the space that it takes up) is overlapping the board edge.

JBW wrote:Now why don't you address this and stop attempting to derail the point.

Honestly, I've been trying. I've hardly "derailed" the thread. I am simply repeating what 10 or so other posters are repeating. There's 1 person out of everyone in this thread that doesn't get it and everyone is trying to explain it to you - that is not "derailing". Something that might "derail" the conversation would be making up Unit Types to fit your explanation of the way the game works. However, it sounds like you have come to terms with the fact that they are not 'flyers', but 'skimmers'. As such, they follow the skimmer rules in the 40K rulebook.

JBW wrote:You be better to stick with I must deploy in my deployment zone argument.

I would need to "stick to" an argument if I thought any of the arguments were unfounded or weak. You've yet to prove your point without dodging rules that we've brought up (which is what is frustrating) - that is the sign of a weak or failing argument.





I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just jerking my chain here.

puma713 wrote:And the crux of your entire problem. There are no dimensions in 40K. There were in 4th Edition. They removed them with the advent of 5th Edition. Since there are no dimensions, then a Valkyrie 50 feet in the air is in the same place as one that is sitting on the ground. They occupy the same space, no matter what physics tells you. The reason they do is because the rules say that they do.

Ah, now this is something noone has brought up. I honestly do not understand what you mean by no dimensions. Please explain further. Models have height, width, and length, and they all come into play from LOS to assaulting something to area of effect. A picture would serve this purpose well. I'll try to explain though. Say that tall masculine Daemon Prince is going to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base, and one of his feet is out further than the any other part of the model over the base. If said Daemon Prince were to attempt to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base then he'd have to either come in contact with the skimmer on a large oval flying base's hull or his base would have to touch the skimmer on a large oval flying base's base. What I think you are suggesting is that the on an end of the skimmer on a large oval flying base where the wing extends out past the base, the Daemon Prince would be able to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base if said foot would make contact with the wing of the skimmer on a large oval flying base if it were on the ground. This is not true, as contact does inherently mean to touch.

Also if the hull of the skimmer on a large oval flying base did define some cylinder type in which you actually counted the hull as if it touched the ground you'd be breaking all sorts of 40k 'physics' (<-it's quoted folks so don't get all excited about real world debates).

Are you suggesting that the base is only to hold the model in a vertical fashion and has no bearing on game play? If so, why would they bother to elevate it? I'm truely interested in this thinking, and have no idea what it is based on.

Okay. It's taken 5 pages, so I don't think explaining it again is going to help. Nevetheless: A skimmer is a vehicle that occupys the space it's hull takes up, just like a land raider. The reason for this is because the rules tell you to ignore the base except for a handful of situations. You are never, ever, ever, ever, ever given permission to measure movement from the base. So, if you cannot measure movement from the base (because you're told to ignore it, and you're not told that you can not ignore it for movement), then you must measure from the hull. If you measure from the hull and find that you do not have enough movement to get the vehicle "onto" the table (referring back to the fact that skimmer is 2D and it takes up the space that it's hull occupies), then the skimmer is destroyed because part of its hull (the space that it takes up) is overlapping the board edge.

Oh gosh, you said it. 2D. Oh no, it's not 2D! Good god, we should have started with that. Explain LOS and hills and how a hill can block via elevation, and partial LOS due to obstructions. I just don't know where to begin.

Honestly, I've been trying. I've hardly "derailed" the thread. I am simply repeating what 10 or so other posters are repeating. There's 1 person out of everyone in this thread that doesn't get it and everyone is trying to explain it to you - that is not "derailing". Something that might "derail" the conversation would be making up Unit Types to fit your explanation of the way the game works. However, it sounds like you have come to terms with the fact that they are not 'flyers', but 'skimmers'. As such, they follow the skimmer rules in the 40K rulebook.

How nice of you to realize that I knew from the beginning and numerous times have referenced the 'Flyer' in quotes and even defined it. It's a specific type of skimmer, and for typing purposes I truncated it with the word Flyer not the unit type. You can try to discuss mature conversations and staying on topic but I sure use initialisms and acronyms just like everyone else, and I don't debate that there's no such thing as a MRB or IC or NOVA. Come on people, . Really, do you honestly think that I was attempting to make a unit type that clearly is not in the MRB? Let it go. It's not some sort of mental block by calling it a Flyer either. The skimmer on a large oval flying base obviously has plenty of exceptions to simply denote it as a word equivalent. What do you want to call it, I don't care but if you think people will be confused with Flyer, then they will be confused if you call it a Skimmer with lots of exceptions. I've never debated that the MRB says that skimmers ignore the base when measuring distances. If I have point it out and I will promptly correct the error. Every mention that I have used any type of measurement is from the hull, with all of the exceptions of course. That conversation led down the measuring from the edge to the back of the hull, and where that was required via MRB. That is where and why the base topic came into play. I'll rehash it again, I will. Especially with you T. simply because while all these folks on here are players, they are not in our local group. I don't intend to convince every member on Dakka, and I'm glad I don't have to. But if you'd like I'll cover it again.

I would need to "stick to" an argument if I thought any of the arguments were unfounded or weak. You've yet to prove your point without dodging rules that we've brought up (which is what is frustrating) - that is the sign of a weak or failing argument.

If you are going to respond to a precise rules quote and explanation with 40k is 2D, then I've obviously proved my point and am done.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just jerking my chain here.

I'll play it however my opponent feels it necessary that they don't feel so disadvantaged that it ruins their enjoyment of the game. But to declare my comments unfounded and unreferenced is simply a lie. They might be misinformed, or misunderstood, but even you know, that I know the MRB better than most, so stop with the unnecessary attempts at writing me off as a brick wall. It's insulting to attack my integrity and I expect more from your contribution. We should meet and I'll bring a Stormraven and maybe we can hash it out that way, but maturely, and like buddies.

JBW wrote:

puma713 wrote:And the crux of your entire problem. There are no dimensions in 40K. There were in 4th Edition. They removed them with the advent of 5th Edition. Since there are no dimensions, then a Valkyrie 50 feet in the air is in the same place as one that is sitting on the ground. They occupy the same space, no matter what physics tells you. The reason they do is because the rules say that they do.

Ah, now this is something noone has brought up. I honestly do not understand what you mean by no dimensions. Please explain further. Models have height, width, and length,

Hmm, how to put this. It may be best to explain on an actual battlefield. There are no "levels" of height. Because a skimmer is 10 feet in the air, it doesn't simply and only occupy that space (that is what I meant by 2D - not that 40K is like Super Mario Brothers). You might think of it as a perforated line that stretches from the outline of the skimmer all the way to the ground. The dimensions of width and length are there - but the dimension of height is not relative. Just because something is 10 feet in the air, doesn't mean it actually "is" 10 feet in the air. It could be floating 3 feet above the air, it could be 20 feet above the air in the clouds, it could be on the ground. Point is, all we have is one defintion of height for certain models and we're stuck in the mentality that that is the only space they occupy. Now, it gets trickier when GW FAQs the ability of other units to move "through" the space that the skimmer occupies. But, it's their game - they can do what they want. If they had said that models may not move through these spaces, then this debate would be much clearer, I think. These caveats do not extend to measurement, movement and other defintions dealing with the hull and dimensions of a vehicle, however.

JBW wrote:Say that tall masculine Daemon Prince is going to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base, and one of his feet is out further than the any other part of the model over the base. If said Daemon Prince were to attempt to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base then he'd have to either come in contact with the skimmer on a large oval flying base's hull or his base would have to touch the skimmer on a large oval flying base's base. What I think you are suggesting is that the on an end of the skimmer on a large oval flying base where the wing extends out past the base, the Daemon Prince would be able to assault the skimmer on a large oval flying base if said foot would make contact with the wing of the skimmer on a large oval flying base if it were on the ground. This is not true, as contact does inherently mean to touch.

I think it is muddying the waters to add hypothetical situations that couldn't occur. If we want to make hypotheticals, then what about a Defiler? It has no base. What if you had a 7 foot tall Defiler - could it not assault the wing of the Valkyrie? It is simply "making contact". Imaginary situations are a bit tricky and should be left out, I think.

JBW wrote:Also if the hull of the skimmer on a large oval flying base did define some cylinder type in which you actually counted the hull as if it touched the ground you'd be breaking all sorts of 40k 'physics'

Like what? Not being confrontational - I'm curious about what that would break (outside of what has been FAQed). If the skimmer is immobilised, you must move models out of the way if you plan to land it, do you not? It is occupying the same space as it was before it became immobilised, except now others cannot move through it. GW has made it tougher to define because they have allowed other models to move through the space that it occupies. It is a caveat to the rules - it is not changing how skimmers work.

JBW wrote:Are you suggesting that the base is only to hold the model in a vertical fashion and has no bearing on game play?

The bearing that it has on gameplay is outlined in the skimmer rules, and then further clarified in the relevant FAQs. So, in short - yes, if you're told to ignore the base, ignore it. It has no bearing, save for whatever the rules tell you.

JBW wrote:If so, why would they bother to elevate it? I'm truely interested in this thinking, and have no idea what it is based on.

I have no idea why they wanted to elevate it. Maybe because it is a huge model and they thought that on a 4 X 6 board, it would be tough to model them close to the ground. Maybe they are planning to add 'flyer' rules to 6th edition and it is simply in preparation for that. I don't know. All I know is what rules govern that particular model.

JBW wrote:

puma713 wrote:Okay. It's taken 5 pages, so I don't think explaining it again is going to help. Nevetheless: A skimmer is a vehicle that occupys the space it's hull takes up, just like a land raider. The reason for this is because the rules tell you to ignore the base except for a handful of situations. You are never, ever, ever, ever, ever given permission to measure movement from the base. So, if you cannot measure movement from the base (because you're told to ignore it, and you're not told that you can not ignore it for movement), then you must measure from the hull. If you measure from the hull and find that you do not have enough movement to get the vehicle "onto" the table (referring back to the fact that skimmer is 2D and it takes up the space that it's hull occupies), then the skimmer is destroyed because part of its hull (the space that it takes up) is overlapping the board edge.

Oh gosh, you said it. 2D. Oh no, it's not 2D! Good god, we should have started with that. Explain LOS and hills and how a hill can block via elevation, and partial LOS due to obstructions. I just don't know where to begin.

See my above explanation of why I said 2D. A hill can block a 2D interpretation. You can also draw LOS through a 2D interpretation. Cut out a picture of a Space Marine, then put a 2D bush in front of him and you have LOS-blocking terrain. Think of it like Vassal (have you ever seen/played Vassal?) - it is a 2D interpretation of 40K. You can imagine the Valkyrie as high up as you want, but it still occupies the space that its hull takes up.

JBW wrote:I don't debate that there's no such thing as a MRB or IC or NOVA.

Or the INAT, which rules in favor of completely being on the board, no overlapping.

JBW wrote:That is where and why the base topic came into play. I'll rehash it again, I will. Especially with you T. simply because while all these folks on here are players, they are not in our local group. I don't intend to convince every member on Dakka, and I'm glad I don't have to. But if you'd like I'll cover it again.

No thanks. This conversation is going in circles and is getting a little tired. If we have to play each other, and one of us is playing one of these skimmers, then we'll just discuss it then.

As it stands, I (discounting FAQs, other people on Dakka and even other people in our local gaming scene) feel that you may not overlap a skimmer's hull over any edge of the board any more than you can overlap a terminator's base or the hull of a land raider. To do so is breaking the rules and, in reserve situations, constitutes an advantage. I will not do it with my own skimmers, unless GW comes out with a FAQ stating it clearly that you can, or until 6th Edition comes out and potentially clears it up. In most tournaments I play in (90%), the INAT is used, so it is not an issue. In the few times that it is ever an issue, I will discuss the point-of-view with my opponent and if they are so stalwart about moving 6" on from reserves and firing all their weapons, I will call a judge.

JBW, look at my previous post. It has every rule regarding skimmers and the large oval flying base(LOFB if you want an abbreviation). It includes the ENTIRE list of exceptions to measuring from the hull, and movement is not one of them. Nor is checking to see if it is on the board.

There is no need to be digging around through mountains of books, FAQ's, and codexes to find them, because I already quoted them for you. Read them, love them, and then tell us where it says where you can do what you are saying is possible.

I'll wait.

-cgmckenzie

EDIT: BTW, the reason the Valk/vendetta/SR is on the LOFB is to provide a bigger target. They are such powerful models that the base is used as a balancing measure to make getting cover harder.

CGM -its not worth it. This is someone who, no matter how many times you prove their error, will still not see it.

There have been no rules arguments from JBW since the start, and they ignore rules that are posted that prove their interpretation is incorrect.

MODELS IN THE WAY
A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases this is only possible in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.

You IMHO are thoroughly confused about what this means. The space occupied is one or the other; the hull or base. For most models it's the base that you typically come in contact with. But for vehicles, it's the hull. The hull's 3D or even 2D perspective has no imaginary lines marking it on the board. Skimmers are typically low to the ground and thus models more frequently come in contact with it's hull, because that's the space it occupies. You can't move under the typical skimmer because you simply cannot move into or through it. You could have put a low flying skimmer on a plateau with a portion of it's hull over the edge and have a model underneath it on the bottom of the plateau and not have erred, as the hull is the space it occupies, and the model under the skimmer is not challenging the defined occupied space.

This doesn't change for the StormRaven (SR). The hull of the SR is what defines the space it occupies. Not imaginary lines, which are mentioned no where in the rules. The reference that you cannot put a model on top of friendly or enemy models is simply restating in the Skimmer section what was already mentioned in the Model section of the MRB. If you set it down and it is on top of other models then you are doing something wrong.

MOVING SKIMMERS
Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

Somewhere along the lines people start thinking that if something above or over meant 'on top of'. And it just so happens that they released a model that does just that; it moves over models. You seem to see the FAQs as all exceptions, and they are all not. Most are reinforcements of rules and GW even goes to clarify

Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on friendly or enemy models? (p71) A: Just the base itself.

Notice how it says 'on' not 'over'.

If what you are suggesting is true regarding the 2D paradigm, then I'd have to agree with you. But it's not. I'll take it one step further and ask how do you measure to determine whether a weapon is in range? I'd imagine that you do it just as everyone else does, and measure from the model to the hull, as that is clearly what we measure distances to and from. That alone defines height, as the weapon will lose range at an angle.

When you’re checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Where does it say horizontally only? If you are measuring from above the model as if it were on the same plane/height, then you are extending your range of fire, thus cheating.

simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model

. If you are measuring starting anywhere else than from the model then you are cheating/shorting the distance between the models. I'm curious how many other people play this way, and why. Now back to the occupation of a model. So I state it again there are serious game play questions here, and maybe this is the mature conversation you were waiting on.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

What I read you saying is this.
"Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move over the board? A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play."


On a side note...

BA.38A.04 – Q: Can a Stormraven end its movement with part of the model hanging off the table as long as its base is fully on the table? A: No, the Stormraven must end its movement with the entire model over the table [clarification]. Note that this may mean it has to move faster than ‘combat speed’ when moving onto the table from Reserves.

Luckily we typically play by INAT locally so that settles that until they do as we both have mentioned; FAQ or Revision. Why hasn't someone mentioned its in the INAT by now....I don't remember seeing this previously.

I didn't like the Deffrolla ruling via INAT and I don't like this one either, but it's in there and that's what we use.

The hypothetical actually, at least in my eyes, defined what you refer to the 2D invisible lines. The Defiler is actually referenced in the MRB, you assault the legs, clear as day.

MEASURING RANGES
If a walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as you would for an infantry model. If a walker does not have a base (like the Chaos Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including its legs and other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Firing the walker's own weapons is an exception to this, as explained later on this page.

cgmckenzie wrote:JBW, look at my previous post. It has every rule regarding skimmers and the large oval flying base(LOFB if you want an abbreviation). It includes the ENTIRE list of exceptions to measuring from the hull, and movement is not one of them. Nor is checking to see if it is on the board.

There is no need to be digging around through mountains of books, FAQ's, and codexes to find them, because I already quoted them for you. Read them, love them, and then tell us where it says where you can do what you are saying is possible.

I'll wait.

-cgmckenzie

EDIT: BTW, the reason the Valk/vendetta/SR is on the LOFB is to provide a bigger target. They are such powerful models that the base is used as a balancing measure to make getting cover harder.

Thanks, but I've covered that already and you are (fortunately) not the first to post references, I've been doing it from the start, check them out. Arrogance and sarcasms work best with the ork smileys . But hey, let's entertain the masses.

True maybe they put them up there because they are so powerful. But it could be that they are flying space craft with engines and maybe transport other models!

JBW, you have no rules backing you up. Plain and simple, you are wrong. Period. To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, enjoy a plethora of rule quotes from literally every instance referring to the large oval flying base.

You're regurgitating the very most what Eldanar just posted, and his was much cleaner and concise. I've read them.

"Q: Are a vehicle’s wings considered to be part of its hull? (p60) A: Yes."
Wings are hull, thus are shootable and, if hanging over the edge of the board, destroy the skimmer.

That's a leap from what's a hull to destroyed. But I do get your point, if the model is destroyed via its hull hanging over the edge, I would agree that the wings hanging over the edge would also mean 'fireworks' <-

"Q: Can models move off the table? (p11) A: Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!"

You cannot move off the table in any fashion. Since all distances to vehicles, except where noted above, are measured to the hull, moving hull off the table counts as moving the vehicle off the table.

See now, if you really had read some of those pages before now, you could have quoted me discussing this very topic. But since you haven't and continuously claim that I have never referenced a rule, here we go again... This is a debate about what is on/off the table. Not discussing it here simply because it has it's own thread elsewhere and I've already established that if the model is still on the table when I let go, then it is not off. If I let go and it falls, then it would be off the table. The models is on the board via the only possible sane way and that is through contact between the base and the board. But just so you know, I will not discuss this further, and if you want to make this a point onto which you claim that I'm stubborn for doing so then thanks for your comments. The topic here is whether or not the model can be hanging over the edge. I realized that Puma started this with a simple goal in mind to declare on/off, but I jumped in and established what the core discussion was/is about. I assume that Puma would also agree that on/off is not what is in question, but rather the ability to 'move completely onto' the board.

If you don't care to read all that, here is the reader's digest version:
Measure all distances to skimmers on a large oval flying base to the hull with the following exceptions:

1)Contesting an OBJ is measured to the base
2)Disembarking/embarking is measured to the base
3)Assaulting can be measured to the base or the hull, which ever the model can contact.
4)Whether or not the model is in difficult/dangerous/impassable terrain is determined by base placement.
5)Shooting from the skimmer is done from weapon mounts
6)Emergency disembarking is measured to the base

FYI, nowhere does it say that the area off the table is impassable terrain; we are simply told that we cannot be there. This matters because skimmers can land on IT if they pass a DT test. Since it is not classified as a type of terrain and we only have the blanket statement "You cannot be there", we cannot have anything there, even if the base of the model is completely on the table.

So, in that long list of 6 exceptions to measuring to the hull on skimmers on a large oval flying base, is there any one that says 'table edge' in it? If not, you are not allowed to use the base for that measurement.

-cgmckenzie

BTW, stop calling them 'flyers'. There is no such vehicle classification; they are merely skimmers on a large oval flying base. I have made that mistake myself out of laziness in the past but that is wrong. Stop doing it.

So where did I call the void past the table edge impassible terrain? I didn't ever. Once again if you would reference the previous discussions you'd know that the table edge mention came from the moving onto the board from reserve. So I'll catch you up to speed, cause I do want your input (minus sarcasms).

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94) A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

Now before you get too excited about that little bit of gold there, go back a couple posts and glance over the discussions so as to not repeat ourselves too many more times. I'm actually quite interested int the 2D paradigm as that alone would solve everything and make sense of what you folks are talking about.

You'll have to read a previous post again, but I gave a bit of a rant about the word Flyer. And you should notice that the way GW references it is quite wordy so I'll use LOFB or Flyer as they are intended to be one and the same, and mine is much easier to say.

Something about this thread is beginning to smell very troll-y?

Scarabs, for example, fit under most regularly-based skimmer tanks perfectly well.
A battlewagon deff rolla halfway off the table can easily be "on the table" without falling off by your imaginary definition.
But it doesn't really matter how many of your arguments we nullify, as you are ignoring any argument, reason and rules anyway. Ignoring cgmckenzies's posts really does make you look like a troll.

And just FYI, INAT is not an offical rules document for the purpose of discussing on YMDC.

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

JBW according to the thread you posted this quote in it's from GW's site about the Throne of Skulls tournament, correct? (I'm unfamiliar with the tournament so have no real idea what it is).

If that's the case, GW acknowledges that, normally, a Valkyrie/vendetta cannot have its tail hung over the edge of the table. This being for a specific tournament, it's a specific ruling that any tournament can make (a tournament organizer COULD say that all space marines are armed with dual pulse lasers and follow the rules for monstrous creatures at no additional cost if they want to). So for a regular 40k game without extra exceptions to the core rules, you cannot have the tail of a valk hanging over the table edge (otherwise, the above quote would NOT be "an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed").

Don't quote tourney rules, be they GW or otherwise. The people writing these rules are not the design team for GW and it has no bearing on the rest of gameplay. A TO can change the rules of the game how he sees fit but it still only applies to that specific event or other events that decide to use that FAQ.

JBW, you don't cover any of our points or your points with rules. You say how you think it is played, then keep telling us that we are wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And to say that I haven't read the entire thread is ludicrous, I have been posting the entire time, providing more official rules and FAQ posts(literally all that apply) than you have(read:zero).

The bit about the edge of the world not being impassable terrain was there, and I am directly quoting myself here, to 'This matters because skimmers can land on IT if they pass a DT test. Since it is not classified as a type of terrain and we only have the blanket statement "You cannot be there", we cannot have anything there, even if the base of the model is completely on the table. ' You can count the base for terrain tests, but that still brings up the issue of being where we are explicitly told we cannot be.

And as far as me regurgitating what other people are saying, it because we are right. There is nothing new under the sun. All rules come from 1 of 3 sources(BGB, White Dwarf, or FAQ's) so you should expect to hear the truth repeatedly if you continue to refuse to recognize it.

I am with augustus on this one. You're a troll.

-cgmckenzie

Don't quote tourney rules, be they GW or otherwise. The people writing these rules are not the design team for GW and it has no bearing on the rest of gameplay.

The purpose wasn't to use the tourny rule as a precedent or as an answer, but to show that those who wrote the rule acknowledge that allowing a Valkyrie to hang its tail off the edge is normally not allowed. I know that TOs can use whatever rules they please and I pointed that out.

That comment was directly squarely at JBW. He was quoting it as the truth and rules while you were using it as an example.

I just really didn't feel like quoting that massive post of his.

-cgmckenzie