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.

Most people use top down measurement anyway ( again the way its shown in the book ) for those people this is simply never an issue. Thats how I measure from my valks, and how I expect my opponents to measure to me. And the rulling so far has been that its all or nothing. All measurements are done using the model as if it were on the table, but LOS is true so I never get cover, ever and that is a major disadvantage.

Most people don't play like that here, probably because it's wrong. The rulebook is very explicit when they say you measure to the hull of the vehicle. It doesn't say "measure to where the vehicle's hull would be if it were somewhere else." You measure from A to B, simple as that.

Furthermore, simple geometry shows how difficult it is to get within melta range (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/mcjesus/triangle.jpg).

And don't pretend being elevated is a major disadvantage. You conveniently leave out the fact that virtually everything YOU are shooting at will have an equally difficult time getting a cover save due to the angle at which you are firing (and which further validates the fact that 40k is played in three dimensions).

Danny Internets wrote:

Most people use top down measurement anyway ( again the way its shown in the book ) for those people this is simply never an issue. Thats how I measure from my valks, and how I expect my opponents to measure to me. And the rulling so far has been that its all or nothing. All measurements are done using the model as if it were on the table, but LOS is true so I never get cover, ever and that is a major disadvantage.

Most people don't play like that here, probably because it's wrong. The rulebook is very explicit when they say you measure to the hull of the vehicle. It doesn't say "measure to where the vehicle's hull would be if it were somewhere else." You measure from A to B, simple as that.

Furthermore, simple geometry shows how difficult it is to get within melta range (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/mcjesus/triangle.jpg).

And don't pretend being elevated is a major disadvantage. You conveniently leave out the fact that virtually everything YOU are shooting at will have an equally difficult time getting a cover save due to the angle at which you are firing (and which further validates the fact that 40k is played in three dimensions).

Whereas actually playing the game has shown its no problem at all getting into melta range. As with everything else you bring up, people actually playing the game seem to have no trouble with these issues.

And being elevated (in practice rather than theroy) had not really changed much in the way of cover saves for my opponents vehicles, but it has made the fact that I NEVER get one pretty much assured.

You obviously have a grudge against the valkyrie and are on a campaign to screw people who play it, fine, but you already lost as the vast consneus is that it will be either played with 2d measurement or ( the way GW played it in the batreps ) by considering it to be grounded for purposes of measurement.

And no one has ever said its a 2d game, only that 2d measurement is the standard. Maybe you play in the one shop that measures parabolic arcs for thier jump troops but I have never seen that at any GW GT - EVER and sorry but I will take thier rulings over yours there Danny.

I've never played with 2D measurement either, and most players I've seen measure 3D a lot without even thinking about it.

When most players I've seen are firing from an elevated position in ruins, if the shots are close to max range, they angle the tape measure to check to see if it touches the enemies' bases, because that's what the rulebook tells us to do.

Yes because that is the exception specifically mentioned in the rule book for ruins which have specific special rules so much so they have thier own seperate section of the book.

Yes you can infer that it should used elsewhere but it is not implicit. In every other example everywhere else in the book it makes no reference to 3d measurement.

And even so that is not the issue im talking about. 3d measurment for shooting makes sense, and thats how I play it too for the most part. But 3d measuremnt for skimmer and jump troop movement is not something I have ever seen.

I have checked with my friends from overseas, many have attended the GW GT for over a decade, they have never seen it either so this is not just my isolated ( GT Baltimore, GT Philly, GT Vegas, Adepticon, GT LA, Dozens of RT in New York, Philadelphia, New Jersey, Baltimore, San Diego, Los Angeles , Virginia, Delaware, New Hampshire, Ontario Canada ) expereince.

Never have I seen this 3d paraboloc movement that you claim is the "only way to play"

And if I am starting to get various peoples claims confused I apologize since this same conversation has now traveled over a couple threads.

First off, Gwar! is kinda proof that all European gamers are not perfect, RaW ignoring angels.

I'm fine letting you disembark from the base, as long as I can Melta the base. Win-win!

RustyKnight wrote:First off, Gwar! is kinda proof that all European gamers are not perfect, RaW ignoring angels.

I'm fine letting you disembark from the base, as long as I can Melta the base. Win-win!

I prefer disembarking from the rear of the base, but measuring to the hull for everything else. It does nerf meltaguns a bit, but I think it will lead to less "WTF" situations.

RustyKnight wrote:First off, Gwar! is kinda proof that all European gamers are not perfect, RaW ignoring angels.

I'm fine letting you disembark from the base, as long as I can Melta the base. Win-win!

In practice its actually a disadvantage to melta to the base since the nose hangs so far out from the base you are better off measuring to the hull for your melta shot. ( this includes the wings to me but thats a whole nother language parsing discussion )I let my opponents do either but the store I played at for my most recent tourney went with the "everything from the base" ruling.

And why the rear of the base? since the model has three acess points? Not that it makes enough of a difference to care about since the base is so much smaller than the model, just wondering why.

bigtmac68 wrote:I say again that this is a manufactured controversey.

Not really, since there are rules issues with the vehicle, as is evident from these threads. It won't be a huge deal in practice, since most players will certainly be happy to adopt some sort of house rules to cover it... but it is an issue, and one worth making as much noise about as possible in the (probably vain) hope that GW will do something about it.

Then again, people kept asking about the 2-model IG heavy bases last edition, and when GW finally FAQ'd it, they made completely the wrong call, so hey, maybe making noise isn't the best idea after all...

I really Craig's point in the most recent D6G was a good one when he dismissed the entire controversy by saying, "this would only come up for people trying to read for advantage."

I couldn't disagree more.

It came up because people noticed that the vehicle didn't really work within the established rules of the game. The fact that people are happy to house rule it, or pretend that there aren't actually any rules issues, doesn't change that.

Speaking for myself, I don't have a Valkyrie, and I don't know anybody else who does... so I'm at a loss as to what sort of advantage I'm supposed to be getting by pointing out how the rules don't work for it.

Some people dont like the Valkyrie, so they are lobbying to cripple the model by imposing an intepretation of the rules that has never been used for any other model. (Exept those two of you out there that claim to actually measure out parabolic arcs for all thier skimmers and jump troops- something I have never seen once in 15 years of miniature wargaming, including tournaments in 12 states, and two countries)

Nobody is lobbying to 'cripple' the model. Bringing rules issues to peoples' attention is the best way to reduce disagreements at the table. Pretty much everybody so far has said that they would be happy to use various house rule fixes to make the model work.

And for what it's worth, I don't recall anybody saying that they actually measure parabolic arcs for jump troops or skimmers... Some of us have said we measure in 3D (ie: measure directly from the first point to the second point as it says to do in the rulebook, which means that the tape is going to be angled if those points are at different heights), and that measurement for movement should follow the models's actual path.

bigtmac68 wrote:Yes you can infer that it should used elsewhere but it is not implicit. In every other example everywhere else in the book it makes no reference to 3d measurement.

Because it doesn't need to. 'Measure to the model's base' means 'measure to the model's base'
Not 'measure to a point in line with the model's base'... that's something completely different.

It doesn't need to state that you measure in 3D any more than it needs to say that you roll a die by picking it up, shaking it a little, and then dropping it on the table so that it rolls.

If you're not measuring to the actual, physical model's base, then you're not measuring to the model's base. You're measuring something else.

@Insaniak

Your points are all well taken, and its not folks like you that have gotten me railed up. I also agree that there are plenty of problems but the idea that some folks have presented that until there is a faq from gw that the model is unuseable is what has gotten me going perhaps to much.

Yes the rules suck, and there are questions, plenty of them. They do require an agreement on how to handle them and most people seem to have no problem with that, they are not the people Im talking to.

Its those who insist that the valk should not be allowed to disembark, still, that im talking to.

which is of course a mistake since they are not people who are willing to listen anyway.

I just need to stay out of these damn valk threads.

You obviously have a grudge against the valkyrie and are on a campaign to screw people who play it, fine, but you already lost as the vast consneus is that it will be either played with 2d measurement or ( the way GW played it in the batreps ) by considering it to be grounded for purposes of measurement.

Yeah, I have such a grudge against it that I went out and bought three of them for my new IG army. So much for that assumption.

In a previous thread I stated that I would be fine with establishing a house rule as long as it is applied consistently, however it still boggles my mind that people can still maintain that position that there is no problem with this model and the rules whatsoever. The model is problematic for the reasons stated and GW should address it, and the best way to expedite that is to be vocal about it.

And no one has ever said its a 2d game, only that 2d measurement is the standard.

Incorrect. 2D measurement being the standard is your own invention. The rules tell us to measure from A to B. Never at any time do they say that these measurements are restricted to the horizontal plane. Just because the examples adopt a top-down perspective (presumably for diagramming simplicity) doesn't mean that the actual rules themselves are irrelevant.

Maybe you play in the one shop that measures parabolic arcs for thier jump troops but I have never seen that at any GW GT - EVER and sorry but I will take thier rulings over yours there Danny.

lol wut. Where on earth did that come from?

I friend of mine asked us about converting the inside of the his Valkryie so that he could unfurl rappeling lines down the side.
It was basically just to look cool, but could it have an impact on the game? Does the codex mention anything about rappeling lines?

Best thing would by to have it mounted on a telescoping rod which would allow you to choose the height at the end of each turn. I've seen gamers who play aerial combat games do this.

It's all very well being high up and out of melta range, but you're going to be a magnet for half the long range weapons on the table.

Ok, so it seems pretty clear from many of your inputs that we will be having snow ball fights in hell before GW gets around to clearing this up and taking their writing seriously. With that said perhaps INAT FAQ should be the standard that I advocate in my circle.

I found INAT FAQ 2.2 (19 Mar 09). But it seems to not address these matters. Is there a more recent INAT FAQ? If so can someone please post a link?

Thanks.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

avantgarde wrote:I have no problem with disembarking from the Valk, but if the person plays it with all the advantages (ie it's 2" off the ground for disembarking or when cover is convenient but 5" for shooting) I'm going to be peeved.

Either it's 5" in the air and you have to disembark in buildings and I can't melta it or it's 2" off the ground and it's like any other skimmer. Don't play it both ways.

As I'm going to play mine, at the end of any given movement phase, a Valk is either down on the ground (0") to embark / disembark, or else up in the air (5") for shooting / being shot at. That seems simple enough, and should fit with the basic intent of things.

I think that'll look good and play fine. I'm not sure there's any obvious advantage or disadvantage to this kind of approach in the kind of casual play that I participate in.

But then, I'm past the whole tournament scene.

You're kidding, right? You're giving yourself 5" of free movement if you don't feel like getting shot at. That is plainly exploiting the rules.
I say measure everything from the hull. If you want to measure embarking/disembarking from the hull on the ground, fine, but shooting has to be measured there too.
Deciding which to use on a turn by turn basis is ridiculous. Then, you get the convenience of embarking troops normally and the safety from shooting once they're in the air.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I friend of mine asked us about converting the inside of the his Valkryie so that he could unfurl rappeling lines down the side.
It was basically just to look cool, but could it have an impact on the game? Does the codex mention anything about rappeling lines?

There's a rule for dropping troops out of the back while moving flat-out. It comes standard with the Valkryie, so any ropes would be purely cosmetic.

But what about when stationery? Isn't that what everyone is asking here?

Mad Rabbit wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I'm going to play mine, at the end of any given movement phase, a Valk is either down on the ground (0") to embark / disembark, or else up in the air (5") for shooting / being shot at.

You're kidding, right?

You're giving yourself 5" of free movement if you don't feel like getting shot at.

I say measure everything from the hull. If you want to measure embarking/disembarking from the hull on the ground, fine, but shooting has to be measured there too.

Deciding which to use on a turn by turn basis is ridiculous. Then, you get the convenience of embarking troops normally and the safety from shooting once they're in the air.

Nope.

How am I getting 5" of free movement?

If the Valk is embarking / disembarking, then it's on the ground, and everything measures to/from the Valk on the ground. Otherwise, it's up in the air and everything measure to/from the Valk on the stand.

I hardly see what's ridiculous about it. It lands to embark/disembark. Otherwise, it flies. And what "safety" are you imagining? In the air, there's no cover saves.

He probaly meant the 2D6 from melta pen.

Anyway, I think it is perfectly alright to land and disembark but ONLY if it has not moved that turn. Otherwise you should use the grav-chute.

Huh? A skimmer can move up to 12" before the models disembark. If the total (diagonal, since that's how people want to count things) movement is up to 12", including landing, then there shouldn't be any problem with moving before disembarking.

The Grav Chute allows the Valk to move 12-24" and disembark anywhere along the path, up to 24" away, rather than up to 12" away.

As for the Meltas, it's a AV12 Skimmer. If it didn't move Flat Out, then, there's no cover save, so the extra d6 hardly matters.

Well I stand corrected. But any further than 12" means the valkryie should not land (talking common sense, not RAW).
And it is not that hard to fail to pen an AV12 on D6, it is a 4+ after all. 50/50

Ive tried to tell people just get two things to make it legal.

1) A popsicle stick
2) Small Piece of Scotch Tape

If someone has an issue with you embarking/disembarking your troops, then simply lower the ramp and tape the popsicle stick to the ramp so it touches the ground.

This "conversion" makes it legal to embark/disembark since there is a wooden plank touching the ground.

Now if they want to play it common sense you dont have to do popsicle stick, its an easy solution.

hmmm, interesting, but I prefer the whole landing scenario. (Just becuase it looks a bit cooler than a popsicle stick).

Anyway, it could be the centre of your mission. You have to get someone to board a valkryie and escape to safety. (Didn't they do that in some battle report IG vs Nids?)

broxus wrote:Ive tried to tell people just get two things to make it legal.

1) A popsicle stick
2) Small Piece of Scotch Tape

If someone has an issue with you embarking/disembarking your troops, then simply lower the ramp and tape the popsicle stick to the ramp so it touches the ground.

This "conversion" makes it legal to embark/disembark since there is a wooden plank touching the ground.

Now if they want to play it common sense you dont have to do popsicle stick, its an easy solution.

I'm going to build all my tanks to be triangles so they have no rear arcs.

heh, heh.
...How?

Emperors Faithful wrote:heh, heh.
...How?

Very craftily.

If you eally want to model for benefit, do some Ork battle wagons. Call them "weiner wagons". He he.

krazynadechukr2 wrote:Hush now.................

still applies...

broxus wrote:This "conversion" makes it legal to embark/disembark since there is a wooden plank touching the ground.

Only if you assume that conversions are legal in the first place. We've been through that one before, several times.


Edit: And actually, not even then, since disembarking is measured from the access point on the vehicle's hull, not from the lowered ramp.

If not for the sheer stupidity from Drop Pods, yea verily, the ramp cannot count as part of the hull.

Anyway, I don't think a Valkryie blockade/fast is the answer. They are just...to...COOOOOOOL!!!!!!!

mwahahahahaha!