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.

insaniak wrote:

Polonius wrote:For starters, there is no mention of the z-axis, except for the sole rule about levels of ruins.

There's no mention of the x or y axis either. So which way can models move?

Fair enough, but I still think it's telling that at no point in the rules does it mention how to deal with verticle distance. yes, I know GW's rules are exclusionary and all that, but GW knows how people play, and everybody plays it 2D.

Secondly, it's been a custom to ignore it for at least as long as I've played. When jump packs move 12", we don't measure the length of their rainbow arc, but the distance on the table between the start and the end.

We don't, becuase it's easier not to, or because the assumption is that intervening obstacles are ignored, rather than moved over. But so far as the rules are concerned, we should. You're supposed to measure the unit's actual movement. The fact that players choose to do it differently has no effect on the actual rules.

Well, at some point don't the rules presuppose basic gaming conventions? I guess not.

When a model climbs a 3" hill, we still allow the rolled Difficult terrain distance horizontally.

I don't. I measure movement distance up hills along the actual terrain.

Well, now I know one person who plays that way.

If firing a template weapon at a ruin level higher than the model, we don't subtract the 3" between levels from it's range.

Of course we don't. You measure the actual range to the actual models you're firing at.

ACtually, the diagram in the ruins section shows the template simply placed on the highest level, and shows which levels it could hit. See p. 85. It's arguably the best evidence that there is no true z-axis.

Polonius wrote:

Well, as I stated in my posts, ruins are the ONLY time that verticle distances are used, and they are highly abstracted. I wrote about a number of times when verticle movement is ignored by all players (climbing hills, jump infantry, range into and out of ruins). Even in the ruins rules, the blast rules are 2d (like a battle cannon shell woudln't have a spherical blast...).

So, we see a huge set of rules that strongly imply a horizontal world, a few rules dealing with stacking units in floors (which is really all the ruins rules are), and one oddity that causes massive problems if 40k is 3D.

The rules do not imply a horizontal world, they simply imply that most situations in the game can be dealt with in 2 dimensions, which is true. However, there are also situations that cannot be dealt with in only 2 dimensions, such as when dealing with multi-level Ruins. One example is all it takes to demonstrate that the designers are aware of the existence of the 3rd dimension in Warhammer 40k.

Armed with the knowledge that the designers know the 3rd dimension exists and the literal interpretation of the rule which requires you to take vertical distances into account, the meaning of the rule as it is written is crystal clear.

and most of us need to change the way we measure range and movement into terrain with height; or we could simply accept the evidence that 40k has no vertical axis.

What survey are you using to determine that "most" people play that way? No one in ANY of the gaming groups I've played in has played that way. We've always measured base to base along a direct route, not simply horizontally. Furthermore, I've never seen anyone moving up a hill measure anything but along the terrain, locally or in tournaments.

Polonius wrote:Fair enough, but I still think it's telling that at no point in the rules does it mention how to deal with verticle distance.

Seriously, do they need to?

Measuring from point A to point B means measuring from point A to point B, doesn't it?

Surely, without the rules telling us specifically to ignore one plane, we would simply measure it as we would anything else.

Well, at some point don't the rules presuppose basic gaming conventions? I guess not.

Is measuring horizontally only a basic gaming convention? I would think it more something that would depend entirely on the game system.

Well, now I know one person who plays that way.

And I know a few more, since it's how we've always played it around here.

ACtually, the diagram in the ruins section shows the template simply placed on the highest level, and shows which levels it could hit. See p. 85. It's arguably the best evidence that there is no true z-axis.

You said 'template' and I for some reason took it as 'blast'... put it down to lack of sleep.

But frankly, I disagree that the Ruins' template rule implies a lack of consideration of the z axis in the rest of the game. It's a specific rule that applies to templates fired at models in ruins. Nothing more. I would asume that it's there simply because pushing the template through the ruins at the appropriate level is just too hard... in many cases impossible due to the construction of the ruin. So they gave us an easy workaround.

I guess, I'm sitting here thinking: we either need major house rules to make skimmer transports work, change the way we play jump infantry, and most of us need to change the way we measure range and movement into terrain with height; or we could simply accept the evidence that 40k has no vertical axis.

We could, if there was any. I have yet to see it.

Here's another one for you: How many players fire template weapons by placing the tip of the template against the firer's base, rather than just holding it above the model?

From my experience, nobody does that, and nobody ever has. Does that mean the rule is wrong, or simply that people choose to play it differently for convenience?

And does the fact that nobody I've seen plays it by the rules actually mean that nobody anywhere plays it by the rules?

I mean, there's certainly a strong RAW argument for Skimmers being incapable of disembarking troops, but I also think there's a decent RAW argument that there isn't a z-axis.

The thing is, either option gives you problems. Assuming that measurement includes all planes causes skimmers a few hassles... and assuming there isn't allows screwy situations like models disembarking into top floor ruins 6 inches above the vehicle they're disembarking from, or assaulting models they can't actually reach because the horizontal distance is nil.

Well, first off, I made the mistake of assuming my own experience is typical, and that's my bad.

As for the problems of assuming a 2D system, I think there are easy work arounds there. You cant' disembark into the top floor of a ruin because disembarkation is movement, and moving into a ruin requires moving over 3" a floor.

As for assaulting units they can't reach, I'm not sure what you mean, but that's probably the result of a specific terrain quirk that can be house ruled around. if not, let me know what you mean.

Polonius wrote:As for the problems of assuming a 2D system, I think there are easy work arounds there. You cant' disembark into the top floor of a ruin because disembarkation is movement, and moving into a ruin requires moving over 3" a floor.

No, moving in a ruin requires 3" per floor.

Disembarking from a vehicle onto the top floor or roof of a ruin is not moving inside the ruin.

However, the same situation can apply to intact buildings, or walls, or cliffs...

As for assaulting units they can't reach, I'm not sure what you mean, but that's probably the result of a specific terrain quirk that can be house ruled around. if not, let me know what you mean.

It's basically the same situation as the disembarkation.


And yes, you can add in house rules to cover whatever situations you like. Such as to allow models to disembark from skimmers...

aha! I actually found the rule that vindicates you guys. P. 82, "coping with different Heights" specifically states that when firing between different levels, to angle the measuring tape, taking the z-axis into account.

So, at least ruins seem to utilize a 3-d world.

Of course, we still have the RAW regarding skimmer bases, in that they're effectively ignored. Bu then, that same paragraph states that distances are measured to the hull except for things like access points, "which all work as normal."

So, yeah, I have to agree that by RAW, the Valk can't embark or disembark.

Polonius wrote:Bu then, that same paragraph states that distances are measured to the hull except for things like access points, "which all work as normal."

'As normal' of course meaning 'measure to the access point itself'... Sounds like you figured that, but thought it was worth mentioning for clarity.

Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

By RAW you must measure the actual distance from the access point. Whether that distance is horizontal, vertical or diagonal, it makes no difference. There is no other possible RAW interpretation. Since it is impossible to place a model within 2" of a Valk's access points, unless you are disembarking onto an elevated position, normal disembarkation will usually be impossible.

Now, RAI throws a kink in that, because of the "disembark as normal" line, since it is impossible to actually disembark as normal. I would err on the side of RAI, since specific > general, and the Valk specifically mentions normal disembarkation. This meas that I would allow my IG opponent to disembark onto the table within 2" horizontal to the access point.

However, on the topic of contesting objectives, it is very clear by RAW that the hull of the vehicle must be within 3" of the objective in order to contest. There is nothing in the IG dex that even hints at a special ability to contest an objective while hovering 5" above it. So, in that case I would definately go with RAW and say that a Valk cannot contest any objective, unless it's hull is within 3" of the marker. That means that the objective itself will usually have to be elevated.

Frazzled wrote:Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

I play using 3d measurement, because it's what's most intuitive.

Frazzled wrote:Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

I really play like that.

Honestly, until coming across the '40K is 2D' argument on one forum or other towards the end of last edition, it had never occured to me to play it any differently... and I've yet to see anything convincing enough from the proponents of the 2D theory to make me seriously consider it.

Even ignoring the rules, playing the game in 3D, to my mind, is the more intuitive way to play it, and far more fitting given the style of the game. It seems wholely counter-intuitive to use a solely top-down view in a game that relies on actual 3D models, 3D terrain and true line of sight.

insaniak wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do you really play like that Insaniak or are you make arguments because its an entertaining thought exercise?

I really play like that.

Honestly, until coming across the '40K is 2D' argument on one forum or other towards the end of last edition, it had never occured to me to play it any differently... and I've yet to see anything convincing enough from the proponents of the 2D theory to make me seriously consider it.

Even ignoring the rules, playing the game in 3D, to my mind, is the more intuitive way to play it, and far more fitting given the style of the game. It seems wholely counter-intuitive to use a solely top-down view in a game that relies on actual 3D models, 3D terrain and true line of sight.

I think that the "2D plane" idea may stem from the fact that everybody played 4th ed LoS wrong. They essentially played everything as area terrain with "height levels" required to see past, including vehicles, monstrous creatures, hills, and other things that you should have been using a models-eye-view to shoot past. Playing in that way did effectively create a 2D game system despite the 3D models and terrain. 4th ed LoS I think was GW's biggest rules-fail ever.

Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

If you believe this can happen - then there is no issue here other than being fair and reasonable to the placement of troops. Which can be accomplished by matching the hatches on the figure to the base and marking the base in a clear way to allow accurate measurement.

Flexen wrote:Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.

Flexen wrote:Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

If you believe this can happen - then there is no issue here other than being fair and reasonable to the placement of troops. Which can be accomplished by matching the hatches on the figure to the base and marking the base in a clear way to allow accurate measurement.

40k is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of rules.

I believe that my little plastic men can fly around the table at a speed of 36" and shoot S9 melta from their eyes, ignoring all LOS, from 72" away....will you let me do it?

insaniak wrote:

Flexen wrote:Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.

Keep in mind, that's how Valks were played in the WD battle report. I think GW meant for skimmers to "land" for embarkation purposes, they just didn't actually write the rules that way.

Like I said earlier, this is going to end up "terminators not having terminator armor" territory, where the RAW says one thing and everybody plays another.

Danny Internets wrote:Personally, I chose option B in the poll, however I do so knowing that a rule is consciously being broken. It seems many people refuse to acknowledge even that much.

Well, that's certainly true. But the reason the "rule is consciosuly being broken" is because the rules are broken, in ways that pure RAW cannot help resolve. It's possible to come up with all sorts of crazy "problems" with the Valkyrie rules, such as:

-Page 71 clearly states that "skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull." Since the base of a Valkyrie is not transparent, it is clearly (zing!) not the "base" of the model. Therefore, the bottom of the Valkyrie should be considered to be part of the model, and can claim objectives.

-Modifying the logic above, the skimmer's "base" is neither base nor model, meaning that while it cannot claim objectives, there is no way to ever assault the Vaklyrie.

-Nowhere in the rules is it stated that the vertical support for the model is part of the "base." Common English usage also supports the notion that this support is separate from the "base" of an object. Since the rules contain a general presumption in favor of allowing models to be assembled in a variety of ways, it is legal to modify the height of the support.

-As Yakface is fond of pointing out, the rules also allow you to modify the dimensions of the Valkyrie, lowering the crew compartment closer to the ground.

The "solution" to all of these problems is to bring some outside thought into the rules. Whether you call this "context" "the RAI" "house rules" or "cheating" is irrelevant. What is important is the realization that it is impossible to ever play a game of Warhammer 40,000 by only using the RAW. "Playing by the clear RAW" is a great idea when the RAW is clear, but that's not the case here. Some use of judgment is required.

insaniak wrote:

Flexen wrote:Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.

Alerian wrote:

Flexen wrote:Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

If you believe this can happen - then there is no issue here other than being fair and reasonable to the placement of troops. Which can be accomplished by matching the hatches on the figure to the base and marking the base in a clear way to allow accurate measurement.

40k is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of rules.

I believe that my little plastic men can fly around the table at a speed of 36" and shoot S9 melta from their eyes, ignoring all LOS, from 72" away....will you let me do it?

There are two arguments on this thread.

1- That there is no direct rule that allows Valks to drop troops as per rule book(s).
2- That common sense and keeping in the spirit of the game allows a method to fairly let the vehicle drop the troops.


If you are of the first opinion, there is no need to post further - no one will argue against your point.
If you are of the second opinion, you can explore other ideas and options to share with others.

What more is there to talk about on this subject?

Well, that's certainly true. But the reason the "rule is consciosuly being broken" is because the rules are broken, in ways that pure RAW cannot help resolve. It's possible to come up with all sorts of crazy "problems" with the Valkyrie rules, such as:

-Page 71 clearly states that "skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull." Since the base of a Valkyrie is not transparent, it is clearly (zing!) not the "base" of the model. Therefore, the bottom of the Valkyrie should be considered to be part of the model, and can claim objectives.

While you're just being argumentative to make a point, it should be noted that the rules for the Valkyrie aren't at all broken, just inconvenient. They can still embark and disembark units given appropriately high terrain, in addition to utilizing their Grav Chute rule.

Dave47 wrote:-Page 71 clearly states that "skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull." Since the base of a Valkyrie is not transparent, it is clearly (zing!) not the "base" of the model.

That logic doesn't actually work.

Skimmers have transparent bases. That doesn't automatically mean that anything else under the skimmer isn't also a base, or that they can't also have a non-transparent base.

-Nowhere in the rules is it stated that the vertical support for the model is part of the "base."

If you want to go down that road, nowhere in the rules is a 'base' ever defined at all. Which is going to lead to far bigger problems than disembarking from Valks.

A flight base has the function of posing the model in a flying position. The stem is a part of the base, since without it, it's not a flight base. It's just a base.

Since the rules contain a general presumption in favor of allowing models to be assembled in a variety of ways,

They do? Where?

As Yakface is fond of pointing out, the rules also allow you to modify the dimensions of the Valkyrie, lowering the crew compartment closer to the ground.

You're out of date on your Yakface quotes. These days, he tends to use a variation on my old argument that the rules in fact don't specifically allow you to modify your models at all. They should be assembled exactly as per their instructions.

There's a general assumption amongst players that conversions are allowed, which leads to the perceived problems that result from the rules not addressing conversions affecting a model's in-game performance.

What is important is the realization that it is impossible to ever play a game of Warhammer 40,000 by only using the RAW.

You won't get a great deal of argument there.

Where problems occur is when people introduce house rules either without realising that they are in fact house rules, when they introduce them claiming that they are clearly the way the game is supposed to be played regardless of the actual rules, or when they assume that their own house rule is the only sensible way to play the game.

If you're going to choose to change the rules, at least allow for the possibility that some people may prefer to do it a different way.

Im not saying that the rule clearly states a 2d world, im saying it ignores it but all examples are 2d.

That means it it UNCLEAR. Im not trying to say that clear RAW supports valks disembarking normally, only that there is no clear RAW that disalows it and that the RAI is very clear from the wording of the codex entry.

It's a moot point at this stage since all the tournaments I will be playing in are ruling to use a 2D disembarkation but I just wanted to be clear that I am not ignoring the bad rule.

I freely aknowledge its crap, unclear, poorly written in the case of the Valk. But to say its a crappy rule that's not clear if used against your argument, and then refer to that same rule as clear and unambiguous support for your own argument is somewhat hypocritical.

Dave47 wrote:-Page 71 clearly states that "skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull." Since the base of a Valkyrie is not transparent, it is clearly (zing!) not the "base" of the model. Therefore, the bottom of the Valkyrie should be considered to be part of the model, and can claim objectives.

While I agree that you should embark measuring to the base and stuff, correlation does not imply causality.

hmm... well I guess that means that my grey knights are gonna have a rough fall when they land...

Do you think grey knight terminators can use their teleporters to get down?

Lets say I wanted my Grey knights to get out and ride on top, can they do that, the model is big enough. I dont think there is a rule that thou shalt not ride on a vehicle... I might be wrong though.

Its Ironic that a transport ship cant transport any troops. Can you imagine an imperial guard regiment loading into a valkarie, the whole squad above this epic battle. When the time comes for them to depart the pilot says, "we are way too high, you can't get out." The trooper then says, "well get lower" to which the pilot replies, "nah, I'm alright this is the perfect altitude for this jet, we are actually saving a lot of gas being at this height."

Can Valkaries only ram other valkaries?

Can models with the melta rule and jumpacks, use a melta on a valk? (e.g. tau crisis suit with a fusion blaster, he ignores height when he is moving, so why not shooting?)

Polonius wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Flexen wrote:Why is it we can accept that a model on a clear stand is flying for game purposes but we can't accept in the movement phase the model descended, unloaded, and ascended to its original elevation?

For the same reason that we can accept that a car, a battleship, a shoe and a puppy can all potentially move at the same speed... Because they work a specific way within the confines of the rules system currently in use.

If the rules allowed for skimmers to land in order for passengers to disembark, doing so would be fine. As it is, the current ruleset allows skimmers only to hover at a single set height for the entire game. No option is given for them to land, to pop up to fire over taller obstacles, to fly sideways through narrow gaps, or deploy tow cables and tip over enemy titans. So none of these things can be done.

It's an acceptable house rule, and a nice workaround for the Valk... just not a part of the actual rules.

Keep in mind, that's how Valks were played in the WD battle report. I think GW meant for skimmers to "land" for embarkation purposes, they just didn't actually write the rules that way.

I must admit that I gave up on White Dwarf when they stopped adding useful cool stuff (like new army lists) and it turned into a mostly modeling and painting periodical. But if they actually had a battle report that included operation of a Valkyrie would that not be the closest thing that we have to the sanctioned word of GW???

Could someone please elaborate on this GW Battle Report and how the Valkyrie was used? What specific parts of this huge argument does this Battle Report support or refute?

Valks can't ram because they aren't tanks. Whether they can be rammed themselves I am not so sure. Ramming is to come into contact with the model. I guess the base is part of the model so maybe it counts.

Anyway theres no need for people to get all defensive in this thread. Most people seem to agree they would allow you to disembark from a valk. its not your fault that the rules are poorly written. What some people are trying to stress is that you can't deny that the RAW will not let you disembark to ground level.

It is important to note this because different players are going to make different assumptions how a valk works in a game.

So the most important thing of all is that this issue be discussed among players before a game. If your fielding valks and know about these issues you have a responsibility to inform your opponent of the issue and then come to some agreement before the game about how it works. As can be seen from many of the posts in this thread, even people who are stressing the RAW of the situation seem sensible enough to allow you RAI.

The purpose of this thread then acts as a discussion mostly about the possible house rules that one might present to their opponent. The advantages and disadvantages etc.

If you make a house rule to ignore vertical distance be sure to specify the extent to which this can happen. Simply ignoring vertical distance allows the valk to disembark on ground and also 3 levels up in a building. It shouldn't be able to do both unless all transports can also do that.

Make sure your house rule is clear and fair.

At my local club we have been testing some rules and this is what we have come up with.
Stick to TLOS rules, Deploy from the edge of the base as it is nearly the same width as the hull
anyway and once you have dis-embarked you cannot re-embark.
Now im happy with everything except the last rule.
Other option is to use the VTOL rule from imperial armour.

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote: But if they actually had a battle report that included operation of a Valkyrie would that not be the closest thing that we have to the sanctioned word of GW???

Not really.

Battle reports often have incorrect rules in them. There's a few reasons for that... Sometimes they're just the players being a little confused, sometimes (most often with new armies, it's been mentioned once or twice) they're using an older edit of the codex before release, and sometimes they will add in house rules just for the fun of it and I suspect that they don't always bother to mention as much.

So as a source of rules a WD battle report is next to useless.

Insanik,

Granted I understand that Battle Reports from White Dwarf may have had erroneouse info in the past. But given the fact that we are on page 6 of this thread now and the community seems desperate for guidance on this topic it seems like this might be the closest thing to GW guidance that exits (?).

Anyways, despite the various opinions of the reliability of Battle Reports could someone please give the Salient points of how the Valkyrie was used in the Battle Report and save me from spending $6 on a magazine, that for the most part bores me (all that fantasy stuff just does not do it for me).

I actually think that there is probably a whole paragraph missing from the Valkyrie entry that was intended to explain this as it seems from the battle report that they had a very clear idea of how disembarkation worked.

Of course they dont bother to really explain it and its just as likley that they ignored RAW in the battle report as they often do because they have always had the position that RAW is irrelevant.

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:Insanik,

Granted I understand that Battle Reports from White Dwarf may have had erroneouse info in the past. But given the fact that we are on page 6 of this thread now and the community seems desperate for guidance on this topic it seems like this might be the closest thing to GW guidance that exits (?).

Anyways, despite the various opinions of the reliability of Battle Reports could someone please give the Salient points of how the Valkyrie was used in the Battle Report and save me from spending $6 on a magazine, that for the most part bores me (all that fantasy stuff just does not do it for me).

Why do you think that the community desperately needs guidance on this? I think that most reasonable people have come to the conclusion that it's something that needs to be discussed with an opponent before a battle, much like Eldritch Storm scattering.