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.

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

They occupy the space of the model - that is INHERENTLY 3D. The *entire game is 3D* with some 2D abstractions where it helps simplify (e.g. flamers in ruins). You have absolutely NO rules quotes to back up that it is a 2D "space" from top down (which is what - a series of 2D planes that oinly exist from top down? the rules and the english language disagree with you)

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

So you ignored the "*IF POSSIBLE* remove the flying base" part of the rules - Breaking a rule (placing models on top of other models) would certianly mean it is not possible.

Underneath another vehicle is exactly that. To occupy the same space as another model you must either sit on top of it or you must be inside it, e.g. a head poking in through a hatch.

The game is 3D. It is played with 3D models, it is played with 3D terrain. TLOS emphasises the 3D nature of the game. TOp down is gone gone gone, say goodbye to 4th ed.

The trouble comes when you try to apply strict labeling to a term designed as a catch-all.

If wings aren't 'hull' - then you can't target a Dreadnought at all - they are a vehicle with no 'hull' - they only have legs, a sarcophagus and arms.

I'm not sure where the argument against being underneath it is coming from - the BGB says you may not move into or through the space occupied by the 'hull' of a vehicle, i.e. everything bounded by the 'hull'. In other words, you have to move around them.

Consider that the 'hull' is 3-dimensional, and continues underneath the vehicle too, so it's as valid to have a model underneath a Valkyrie as it is to have a model standing next to it, as neither model is within 1 inch of the 'hull'.

It's also been pointed out before, but it's worth mentioning again: If it's not possible to take a wrecked/immobilised skimmer of it's stand (such as in the case of being assaulted, since taking it off would displace the assaulting unit - it being glued on is only an example of the possible reasons, albeit the most common one) then, as the BGB says: "don’t worry about it. The skimmer’s anti-grav field is obviously still working"

EDIT: Dammit - Ninja'd by Nosferatu

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

=== start comment at gwar ===
Not a great argument there gwar.
=== end comment at gwar ====


Sponsons are never classed as being being different from hull.

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

Not a great argument there gwar.

Sponsons are never classed as being being different from hull.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Gwar was claiming that sponsons cannot be targeted, but was simply pointing out the logical fallacy in the argument.

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

None.

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

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

Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

willydstyle wrote:I could be wrong, but I don't think that Gwar was claiming that sponsons cannot be targeted, but was simply pointing out the logical fallacy in the argument.

A cookie for you good sir!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

Fluff != Rules

augustus5 wrote:

Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

GIven their base is in difficult terrain they have definitely moved into the terrain, therefore requiring a DT test.

The entire game is 3D. Think of it that way and a lot of things make sense. It is not a 2D, top down game.

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

If you had reread Skinnattittar's post, you would have seen that the statement Sliggoth was asking for a citation on was:

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

In that context, what Sliggoth said was perfectly valid, if worded a little indirectly. I myself never noticed it saying in the rulebook that sponsons were never part of the hull, so I'd be interested in where it says that as well.

Back to the original situation- The shot was on target but off of the table because your opponent ended his turn with the vehicle illegally placed.

I would work from the point that two wrongs don't make a right.

I would have done as you and not have counted the hit.

I then would have asked that my opponent remove the Valk as destroyed or at least put it into reserve for ending his turn with it illegally placed.

Probably would have asked for a ruling at that point if he argued the case.

Used to be at some tournies a rule that any model that was illegally placed or partially off table at the end of the players turn was counted as destroyed. Is there still such a rule?

Off-topic: Not saying the "wings" count or not. Just issues that I have with the points brought up and clarifications I'd like to make.

Now as far as the argument I've seen some exaggerations proffered(that I'd like to correct) as reasons to not count the "wings".
'Natter and IGvamp, I served my tour in the US Air Force bout 20 years ago.

'Natter When I served it was called a fuselage. The Air force and the military in general are kinda picky about nomenclature. Also where is the fuel for the aircraft carried? In its wings. Where are the control surfaces that keep the aircaft controlable? The wings. Hits to aircraft wings are very serious and any attempt to argue other wise is absurd.

Now I, proffer that using Normal aircraft is not the best correlation to the Valk. The thing that makes a Valk have a Hull is that it is in their unit description. The logic that supports GW stating this is that the Valk is a spacefaring craft, which do have hulls. This is likely why they where actually listed as having a hull in their unit description.

So they do have a hull. The fuselage argument stops where it was stated under the unit description of having a hull.

IGVamp-When F-16s are hit with that much damage the pilot ejects. "If" (big if) he doesn't, the aircraft is no longer capable of combat and would leave the theater of operations immediately. Has to do with that the F-16 is an unstable aeronautically for increased combat agility, and the only thing keeping them in the air is its flight computer constantly adjusting the surfaces of the wings/control surfaces to keep the aircraft stable.
F-15, was designed before this tech and its delta lifting body design does help to make it resistant to damage but still suffers from fuel in the wing issues and requires the control surface of the wing to fly(Even the strike eagle).
Now the A-10 Can absolutely absorb that much damage and is closer for comparison. Sure the A-10 doesn't carry passengers but both are designed for low-level operations and are armoured against small arms fire.

When talking about thrust keeping something aloft that doestn't have wings, rotors, or VTOL you are talking about "Lifting Body" designs. Something not designed into the F-16 and only in a limited way into the F-15. Their wings may be small but they have front and rear flaps to provide extra lift when needed. They deploy at low speeds and and in combat, then receed into the wings for high speed flight and fuel conservation.

Now by the "Fluff" the Valk/Vendetta does indeed have VTOL so the best aircraft to use for comparison would be the Black Hawk Helicopter mixed with a bit of the Harrier . This would make the "wings" into oversized sponsons.

On- Topic: After examining, and more accurately defining, a real world correlation to the Valk/Vendetta I will posit that there is an argument that the things sticking out are not wings but sponsons

This is supported by that they are not called wings anywhere in their unit listing but there is an obscure refference about taking sponsons.
They are not wings according to RAW.

They are not clearly stated as sponson but one of the Vehicle Options is for a pair Sonsons armed with Heavy bolters.
This lends toward an"Implied" as sponsons

This may or may not help and the answer won't be definitive untill there is a Faq/eratta.

I would lean towards the thought that damage to a sponson could detonate ammunition or at least destroy the weapon but I'll sit back and listen to the wisdom of others at this point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Well, do skimmers have to take a test if they end their move in difficult terrain? One would assume that they are indeed hugging the ground rather than swooping high above the battlefield, and as such, no matter how tall the base is that other models can not occupy space under the "wings" of the model.

GIven their base is in difficult terrain they have definitely moved into the terrain, therefore requiring a DT test.

The entire game is 3D. Think of it that way and a lot of things make sense. It is not a 2D, top down game.

I don't think I've ever contested that this game is played in three diminsions. Please reread my post that you quoted and show me where I made that assumption and I'll apologize for thinking in 2d terms for you. Otherwise...

focusedfire wrote:Back to the original situation- The shot was on target but off of the table because your opponent ended his turn with the vehicle illegally placed.

I would work from the point that two wrongs don't make a right.

I would have done as you and not have counted the hit.

I then would have asked that my opponent remove the Valk as destroyed or at least put it into reserve for ending his turn with it illegally placed.

Probably would have asked for a ruling at that point if he argued the case.

Used to be at some tournies a rule that any model that was illegally placed or partially off table at the end of the players turn was counted as destroyed. Is there still such a rule?

To my knowledge that is still a rule, however I feel it is poor to enforce it after you have begun your own turn, and poor sportsmanship to wait for your opponent to declare an end of their movement and shooting phase to ask it removed as destroyed. This is a game, not a cut throat sport where there is money to be made, in fact, no money should ever be made of playing this game in my opinion. It stops being fun and then I just become mean..... this game is VERY easy to manipulate, especially others, even those that think they are impenetrable to manipulation can be fooled/tricked/swayed. It is not something I like to do, as I usually feel as if I stole the fun form the other person, rolling up their army like a quickly cut tendon... that was too much grim dark.

Basically, if you notice they have mildly misplaced their vehicle, let it be, if they are doing so to flamboyantly and intentionally gain a tactical advantage, yeah, fry their asses like a piece of bacon. Bottom line, sportsmanship and fun are what make this game worth playing, don't be TFG trying to cram rules down people's throat or proclaiming that you know what GW's intentions were for the Valkyrie's wings. Compromises suck because nobody is happy with the results and that ruins it for both players. So I understand why a ruling is needed for Valkyrie wings. At the same time having the Valkyrie being the largest model in basic 40k games with relatively weak armor, zooming about with near nowhere to drop droops, hold over terrain or other units, because if you get immobilized you'll have some big complications, just seems like a big kill-joy and makes the Valkyrie, and otherwise fun new unit for the Guard, that much less likely to see table time, which is really the only good boil down reason for people to oppose just letting the wings slide as 'decorative' or 'non-hull' as much as that may or may-not appeal to their sense of order in the world of WH40k, a point itself that is entirely laughable and ludicrous.

EDIT : P.S. ; I am really getting tired of writing and reading text blocks....

focusedfire wrote:

They are not clearly stated as sponson but one of the Vehicle Options is for a pair Sonsons armed with Heavy bolters.
This lends toward an"Implied" as sponsons

This may or may not help and the answer won't be definitive untill there is a Faq/eratta.

I would lean towards the thought that damage to a sponson could detonate ammunition or at least destroy the weapon but I'll sit back and listen to the wisdom of others at this point.

well, if you look at the model there seem to be two locations on the "body" for those sponsons

otherwise it doesn't seem to specify where those things are placed on the model....

Skinnattittar wrote:

EDIT : P.S. ; I am really getting tired of writing and reading text blocks....

If your tired of reading then don't. If your going to, then look a little more closely at what has been written.

1)My reply to the original point was in essence, First be a good sport. Second, ask your opponent to do same (Offer compromise) if he doesn't offer. Third, if your oppent insists upon being TFG then call for a ruling(maybe even dock his sportsmanship for not offering in the first place).

Didn't comment about letting your opponent know he had misplaced a piece because of the original post stating that both didn't realise until it came up(after the shot and alsready too late).

2)Gave the path for arriving that the Valk does not have wings by RAW. Doesn't matter what the box the model came in says, this was just purely an in-game RAW observation. I was in essence supporting your stance through the use of a more accurate corrolary.

3)Did not make attempt a rules interpretation but just attempt to clarify the Nomenclature. Then stated what I leaned towards but did not offer such as a definitive answer. Rather, I proffered that this will be contested until there is an errata.


@Lacross- There is also the discription that the access points are on the "side" of the Hull. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be counted, just that in friendly games it needs to be discussed before hand. If your the IG player, be a good sport and point out the issues that you are aware of and ask what your opponent is comfortable with.

In tournaments then it is the organizers responsiblity. If they don't step up and do their job then note such and make sure the organizers know how you feel. If they have left you hanging in this manner then reffer to what I suggest for friendly games.

I'm hoping for a faq by Christmas. Maybe if the model start to recieve complaints based on this issue and sales dropped a bit then GW will express an overnight answer.

I think counting any illegally placed model as destroyed is a good way to turn a tournament into a screaming match.

I mean, when you have a Land Raider full of Terminators near the side of the board, and the edge of the Land Raider is rounded and above the table, and the edge of the table is a little worn, and you don't know if your opponent bumped the Land Raider a little when he measured it for shooting, you've got a powder keg ready to go off if your opponent tries to "call" you on it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think counting any illegally placed model as destroyed is a good way to turn a tournament into a screaming match.

I mean, when you have a Land Raider full of Terminators near the side of the board, and the edge of the Land Raider is rounded and above the table, and the edge of the table is a little worn, and you don't know if your opponent bumped the Land Raider a little when he measured it for shooting, you've got a powder keg ready to go off if your opponent tries to "call" you on it.

I think it's worth noting that I have never, not once, seen this as a house rule in any tournament.

I have heard of it before, but never seen it done, probably because it is preposterous unless one player is doing so intentionally to gain some sort of exaggerated advantage.

When I play, and it turns out something had been done that wasn't supposed to, by write of rules, and both players have had full disclosure (I find it completely reasonable to assume your opponent has a firm and total grasp of the rules, if not, total right to ask for a moment to consult a rulebook or codex, even if you know for a fact a rule is a certain way), then it must be allowed to pass. So in the case where a player mistakenly places part of his model off the table, as in the Original Post, and the opposing player made no comment, then that model may stay there until the next movement phase where it must be corrected.

If the opposing player pointed this out to the owning player, and that player refuses, then there is an issue and I (as a referee) would count that vehicle destroyed. In a case where it is obvious the opposing player was trying to be manipulative and abusive intentionally, I would also count it as destroyed, after the fact.

Sportsmanship and fun are what I always try to encourage others when rules disagreements come up. I go so far as when I find myself trouncing an opponent, which I know is never fun having been trounced enough in my time, I will try and offer them a chance to end the battle, or I will put a platoon in a poor spot for them to chew on and have a little victory. Even if it costs me a friendly game, nobody likes to lose.

Out of curiosity, I had a look in the BGB to see what it has to say about overhanging models - and I can't find anything except for a mention when fleeing models exit the table. Am I missing something?

Can people who say units can go under wings explain what happens when the Valk is immobilized and didn't go flat out?

jbalthis wrote:Can people who say units can go under wings explain what happens when the Valk is immobilized and didn't go flat out?

Errm, just like always? It just stays on its flight stick, just like every other skimmer with a glued on stick or who cannot remove their base for some reason.

jbalthis wrote:Can people who say units can go under wings explain what happens when the Valk is immobilized and didn't go flat out?

If you'd read the bit which said "IF POSSIBLE" I would say it is fairly obvious what would happen to it.

I don't anyone who glues the base onto their valkyrie. So in all cases in my experience it would be possible to dismount it. So it is possible, so what would happen?

jbalthis wrote:I don't anyone who glues the base onto their valkyrie. So in all cases in my experience it would be possible to dismount it. So it is possible, so what would happen?

Read again. "IF POSSIBLE". If it is not possible because of models underneath, you don't remove the base. Having the base glued on is NOT the only time it might not be possible to remove the base.

How do you measure 1 inch from enemy units? From the base or from the aircraft top down view?

jbalthis wrote:How do you measure 1 inch from enemy units? From the base or from the aircraft top down view?

Take a tape measure, measure from the base or hull of unit a to the closest part (hull or base) on the Valk in 3D space.

So lets say my base is 1 inch away of a enemy troop which has units under the nose and wings. What happens when the valkyrie wrecks?

jbalthis wrote:So lets say my base is 1 inch away of a enemy troop which has units under the nose and wings. What happens when the valkyrie wrecks?

Read the section on Skimmers again please.

IF POSSIBLE remove the base, if not, leave it on the base as a floating wreck. If you cannot remove the base because it would land on other models, then you don't remove it.

What about explosion rules?

jbalthis wrote:What about explosion rules?

What about them? Try reading the rulebook rather than asking people to spoonfeed you it.

...you could just not answer

Last post in this thread I promise.

I really would like to read your interpretation of an exploding valk and how it contradicts with a floating wreck.

My end solution; Personally I'm going to play the valk whichever way the opponent will agree to because too many people seem to disagree about the basics. Until GW comes out with a FAQ this subject is going to get beat to death. I obviously disagree with some things people have posted in this thread but I feel I understand more about why people are argueing certain points. I understand ya'lls points and can argue for them too. I guess it comes down to personally preference.