Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can't be bothered to read all this so here's my 2p

my respose to someone not letting me disembark from my valks would be:

FFS "smacks opponent round head"

while they are reeling on the floor I ge out 2 pieces of cotton, tie them to the heavy bolter sponsons,

instant rappelling lines, the access point is now at ground level

problem solved.

course i could abuse this by tieing 24" rapeeling lines on and declaring an acess point 24" away from the hull, round corners and through their troops, but i'm not a jerk

dr vompire wrote:FFS "smacks opponent round head"

*Nonsense*

but i'm not a jerk

Right...

Thanks for addning nothing to the discussion.

Hmm... I'd say that it would have to be from that facing of the base for it to work. There should have been some sorto f 'landing' rule in the codex, but I find this oversight to be one of many perplexing ones that have come out of the new codex (anyone have a model of Pask? Says it has to be the Tank Ace model, but as far as I've been able to determine, no one I know of seems to have one)

willydstyle wrote:

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.

I would not even agree that thats the conclusion-that this has to be discussed. Its a skimmer like every other skimmer in the game.

Frazzled wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

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.

I would not even agree that thats the conclusion-that this has to be discussed. Its a skimmer like every other skimmer in the game.

And every other skimmer in the game measures from its hull for contesting objectives, and measures 2" from access points for embarking/disembarking.

And none of them have this as an issue.

"And every other skimmer in the game measures from its hull for contesting objectives, and measures 2" from access points for embarking/disembarking. "

and every other skimmer in the game didn't get stuck with that flying base either.

alarmingrick wrote:"And every other skimmer in the game measures from its hull for contesting objectives, and measures 2" from access points for embarking/disembarking. "

and every other skimmer in the game didn't get stuck with that flying base either.

Which is why, as I said, this should be discussed with your opponent before each game.

Imagine the following scenario:

Your turn five (possibly the last turn of the game) has just started after a tough, well-fought game. Your opponent has been an exceptional sportsman, even allowing you to go back and move a unit you'd forgotten to move, and reminded you once to assault with a unit that you had forgotten. The assault cost him his important HQ (lets say a farseer).

Your opponent has two troops on objectives, and you only have one troop on an objective. You move your valkyrie so that its base is within 3" of one of his objectives, but the hull of the valkyrie is still not within the 3".

At the end of the turn, you roll a 2, and the game is over.

You say, "Man, that was a great game, looks like a tie."

Your opponent says, "why?"

You say, "My valkyrie is contesting that objective..."

Your opponent says, "No, it's not within 3". If I'd known you wanted to play that way I would have focused more firepower at it."

What do you say next? Your opponent is well within the rules, and you'd never discussed it ahead of time.

I would say he sucks and I would regret having wasted valuable hours of my life playing him. Thats not true, I would not have played him in the first place.

The point is, this opponenet would have every right to deny the Valk from contesting. By RAW, th ehull is not within 3" of the objective, which the rules say it has to be. Alos, w/o talking to oyur opponent beforehand, you have no right to be deogatory of him, since he is simply following the rules.

Also, don't forget, the Valk can contest objectives in higher levles of ruins than a normal vehicle, thanks to that flying base. You can't have it both ways.

The tall flying stand is a two-edged sword. That base will put the model out of meltagun 1/2 range far more often than not (thanks to being 5" tall), so people should accept the penalties that go with such a benefit. It seems to me that everyone supportting using the base for objective grabbing measurements want all of the benefits of the new model, without any of the penalties.

Like I said before, I would have no problem letting someone disembark normally from the Valk, because RAI seem to allow this, despite RAW. However, there is nothing in the IG dex that even hints that you can measure from its base for objective contesting. It funtions like any other skimmer, which means measuring from the hull.

We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard.

You know, it occurs to me... are we measuring the vertical distance from the bottom or top of the model or objective to determine the distance to the Valk?

BaronIveagh wrote:You know, it occurs to me... are we measuring the vertical distance from the bottom or top of the model or objective to determine the distance to the Valk?

From closest point to closest point, as that would be the line "between" the two objects.

Frazzled wrote:
We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard.

Those are perfectly fine house rules, but because they are that and only that, they should be discussed with your opponent before the game, not during.

Danny Internets wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard.

Those are perfectly fine house rules, but because they are that and only that, they should be discussed with your opponent before the game, not during.

Playing like that fundamentally changes the strategy of placing objectives. I have placed objectives in the top floor of a ruins before to prevent my opponents bikers from being able to get to them. Did he assume that we played by different rules because his bikes couldn't capture the objective? No... he tabled me

Frazzled wrote:
We're playing on fundamentally different concepts here. We don't play with objectives on the second story etc. We measure distances from objectives on a 2d plane with skimmers not gaining an advantage in that regard.

No offense intended, but then you are playing solely by house rules.

40k is played in 3d, not 2d. This is true not only with movement, but with TLOS and measuring range as well.

willydstyle wrote:
Playing like that fundamentally changes the strategy of placing objectives. I have placed objectives in the top floor of a ruins before to prevent my opponents bikers from being able to get to them. Did he assume that we played by different rules because his bikes couldn't capture the objective? No... he tabled me

I saw someone do this to an opponent who only had Hormagaunts as Troops. Needless to say, the Tyranid player lost.

But, yeah, it's an extremely powerful strategy versus Nob biker lists.

I brought up the topic of valkyries not being able to contest flat ground objectives to an IG player yesterday. Not during a game, just in a discussion about rules for something similar.

The answer I got was "it was marketed as a scenic base, so yes they can".

So... [puts on fire retarding suit and steps in gently]....

pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.

Area is a 2 dimensional description, not 3. Since the base is on the ground... and this is a model supplied with a base... it occupies this area. Thus the vertical access is ignored. It does not say you occupy the volume of your base at it's intended height.

With the supposition that the model occupies this area you can then measure from this area as you where on the ground for all purposes and intents.

If you wish to argue that the models stick IS part of the area of its base this is fine too b/c we can't disregard the actual black part and the model occupies the entire space at once placing it close enough to the group for embarking and disembarking.... ramming.... etc.


On page 71 it says that modesl, as normal vehicles distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull. However, pg 3 doesn't say that you ignore the base on a model if it is a vehicle... only that you use the hull if the model DOES NOT COME WITH A BASE.

So even if you can't remove the flying stand during play it does not say the model can't occupy the space (any of it) that is described by it's base.

jgemrich wrote:So... [puts on fire retarding suit and steps in gently]....

pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.

Area is a 2 dimensional description, not 3. Since the base is on the ground... and this is a model supplied with a base... it occupies this area. Thus the vertical access is ignored. It does not say you occupy the volume of your base at it's intended height.

With the supposition that the model occupies this area you can then measure from this area as you where on the ground for all purposes and intents.

If you wish to argue that the models stick IS part of the area of its base this is fine too b/c we can't disregard the actual black part and the model occupies the entire space at once placing it close enough to the group for embarking and disembarking.... ramming.... etc.


On page 71 it says that modesl, as normal vehicles distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull. However, pg 3 doesn't say that you ignore the base on a model if it is a vehicle... only that you use the hull if the model DOES NOT COME WITH A BASE.

So even if you can't remove the flying stand during play it does not say the model can't occupy the space (any of it) that is described by it's base.

The page 71 rules clearly supercede the page three rules. The more-specific rules for skimmers are used rather than the less-specific rules used for other models. That's just the way the rulebook works, or otherwise jump infantry couldn't move 12" in the movement phase, cavalry couldn't assault 12", etc.

Where on 71 does it supercede the fact that a model occupies the area of its base?

Because it states that the base is ignored for all purposes other than assaulting the vehicle.

jgemrich wrote:So... [puts on fire retarding suit and steps in gently]....

pg 3.

Measuring Distances.

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.

Area is a 2 dimensional description, not 3. Since the base is on the ground... and this is a model supplied with a base... it occupies this area. Thus the vertical access is ignored. It does not say you occupy the volume of your base at it's intended height.

Page 56: "As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the
normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base
cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a
vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other
decorative elements)."

So much for that.

crawls back under rock...

Thanks. : D

insaniak wrote: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.

This means that no player may field an Ironclad Dreadnaught or a Vendetta because GW has not yet released specific models for those units, and conversions are illegal. This actually supports my larger point, as it shows how impossible it is to play Warhammer without using at least some "soft rules."

insaniak wrote: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.

I freely agree that the Valkyrie is a little wonky from a rules standpoint, as it is not entirely clear by strict RAW how it should be played. This creates a gray area, and I'm fine acknowledging that some players may not be happy with the way most players resolve the Vaklyrie rules. After all, I'm not happy with the majority rule on some 40k gray areas.

Where I find this thought exercise objectionable is if we take the step from acknowledging "the rules are unclear" to holding that "therefore all interpretations are equally valid." I hope that everyone in this thread would agree that disallowing all conversions is not an "equally valid" alternative to allowing them. I believe that the same logic that supports allowing conversions also should allow the Valkyrie to function as any other skimmer.

I don't think it's appropriate to look to common sense to solve a whole host of 40k problems, and then to cling to a controversial and debatable "pure RAW" interpretation to nerf a unit in your opponent's army.

Am I correct in that the only actual issue is the scenic base the Valkyrie/Vendetta comes with, not the model or its rules themselves?

Dave, what's your stand on Melta Weapons shooting at valks, disembarking onto tall buildings, and contesting objectives on the third floor?

Dave47 wrote:allow the Valkyrie to function as any other skimmer.

This is my preferred answer of how to handle a Valkyrie. This means treating it's height the average skimmer height though, for all measurements.

I think that is completely fair. I'm not ok with players that want to disregard the height of the base that came with the model for some things, but not others. Feel free to embark/disembark on the ground as normal and contest, but I am going to then measure my ranges to shoot you as if you were 2" off the ground (or whatever average skimmer base height is).

It's a skimmer, so treat it identically to the average skimmer in the game. Until GW changes the rules for the Valkyrie, I think this is the best compromise available. IG players should recognize it is a compromise though, not a requirement that their opponent agree to it. They would certainly be justified in saying they didn't want to play someone that won't agree to it, but get it agreed on before the game.

Thats how our group intends to play it, like any other normal skimmer with not more than 2in height for all measuring purposes. If there is an objective in a building at height then upwards movement rules apply like any other mini.

Dave47 wrote:This means that no player may field an Ironclad Dreadnaught or a Vendetta because GW has not yet released specific models for those units, and conversions are illegal. This actually supports my larger point, as it shows how impossible it is to play Warhammer without using at least some "soft rules."

It's not impossible to play the game without those two units.

insaniak wrote:Where I find this thought exercise objectionable is if we take the step from acknowledging "the rules are unclear" to holding that "therefore all interpretations are equally valid."

So how do you decide which ones are valid?

If the rules are unclear, it's down to your personal interpretation of what the rules might be intended to mean. How can you honestly say your interpretation in that case is any more valid than anyone else's? Just because your version of the rule makes the most sense to you, that doesn't mean that it makes the most sense to anyone else.

I hope that everyone in this thread would agree that disallowing all conversions is not an "equally valid" alternative to allowing them.

Of course it is.

I would never advocate it, but I can certainly see an argument for only allowing current, stock GW models, for those who want to make sure that their game conforms as closely as possible to the rules as written. Yes, that means that there are some units or options that can not currently be used. But if players are happy to play that way, that's their choice.

I've come across quite few players who objected to scratch-built versions of vehicles that have existing GW models, particularly when the scratch-build has different dimensions. It's not a big jump from there to disallowing anything that alters the proportions of GW models.

I don't think it's appropriate to look to common sense to solve a whole host of 40k problems, and then to cling to a controversial and debatable "pure RAW" interpretation to nerf a unit in your opponent's army.

Who was doing that?