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.

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

Now you are not making any sense. When a Vehicle is Wrecked, it it left in place. If it is a skimmer, IF POSSIBLE, remove the flight stand, if not, leave it.

When a Vehicle Explodes, the vehicle is removed completely.

I mentioned this earlier, but I suppose I will restate. The rule saying you cant come within 1 inch of an enemy model has nothing to do with units illegally under a valkyrie.

The rule you are looking for is 'No units can occupy the same space.'

Gwar, if you were right (which I think you are not) that the reason you can put a unit under a valk is because they are more than 1 inch away, then what about in the assault phase? Can you jump on top of the valk's wing since the 1 inch rule is lifted in the assault phase? Can you move on top of the valk's base now? Can you put the flying base on top of a friendly rhino since their is NO one inch rule for friendlies?

In effect, what you are saying with respect to 3d space is that it is acceptable to stack friendly rhinos on top of each other. Maybe that is not what you intended, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Also, the fact that its not possible to remove the flight stand because their are models (illegally) sharing the EXACT same space on the board, is a joke. I dont know how you can argue that with a straight face. The whole 'the game is played in 3 dimensions' gets old fast when you have a flat 2d board you play the game on.

But meh, maybe you like stacking rhinos on top of each other, since they are not sharing the same 'space' thanks to the laws of nature that prevent matter from occuping the same space. Good of GW to print that rule to clarify that two objects can not occupy the same space, im sure thats what they ment.

DevianID wrote:I mentioned this earlier, but I suppose I will restate. The rule saying you cant come within 1 inch of an enemy model has nothing to do with units illegally under a valkyrie.

The rule you are looking for is 'No units can occupy the same space.'

Gwar, if you were right (which I think you are not) that the reason you can put a unit under a valk is because they are more than 1 inch away, then what about in the assault phase? Can you jump on top of the valk's wing since the 1 inch rule is lifted in the assault phase? Can you move on top of the valk's base now? Can you put the flying base on top of a friendly rhino since their is NO one inch rule for friendlies?

In effect, what you are saying with respect to 3d space is that it is acceptable to stack friendly rhinos on top of each other. Maybe that is not what you intended, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Also, the fact that its not possible to remove the flight stand because their are models (illegally) sharing the EXACT same space on the board, is a joke. I dont know how you can argue that with a straight face. The whole 'the game is played in 3 dimensions' gets old fast when you have a flat 2d board you play the game on.

But meh, maybe you like stacking rhinos on top of each other, since they are not sharing the same 'space' thanks to the laws of nature that prevent matter from occuping the same space. Good of GW to print that rule to clarify that two objects can not occupy the same space, im sure thats what they ment.

Please, try knowing the rules before posting. No you cannot put the flying base on top of a friendly model because no models base may occupy the same space as another models base or hull, even friendlies. The rest of your post I refuse to read as you exhibit not even the faintest hint of rules understanding.

Wow, way to say EXACTLY what I said, namely no units can occupy the same space. Except, you are still arguing that a valkyrie can be on top of another model, when YOU KNOW THEY CANT.

Thus, YOU have failed 'the rulz' and are agreeing that what you said earlier about units being under the valk's hull was actually false. Perhaps you should read my posts, verbose as they are, before denouncing them.

Above a model is not occupying the same space.
If it were, you would not be able to use ruins.
The Space occupied by a model is (unsurprisingly) the actual Space taken up by the model, not some Abstract 2D representation, considering 40k is a 3D game. The valk is on a Flight stand, and is thus able to occupy space above another model. A Rhino is not, so it cannot.

If above a model is ok, then what about a rhino directly above another rhino? What you are saying makes no sense.

I think you have confused 'occupy' with 'touching.' Two models are allowed to touch--base to base contact for example.

The rules make a stipulation that no 2 units can occupy the same space on the board. This does not mean 3d space, this means 2d board space. If the rule was for 3d space, then you can put a rhino on top of a rhino, because while they are touching, they are not occuping the same space (due to the laws of physics they cant).

My talk of rhino's under rhino's is a logical equivlent to a rhino under a valkyrie. You dont like it, cause we all know rhinos cant be on top of rhinos, but your talk of a unit under the hull of a valkyrie, thanks to a flying base, is just as preposterous.

Also, show me the rule in the rule book to back up your comment "The valk is on a Flight stand, and is thus able to occupy space above another model."

Show me the rule to backup your comment.

Also, you forget toy must always place models back onto the table or terrain, you cannot leave them on top of another model or floating in thin air.

You are trying to say that the rule lets you do something, the onus of proof is on you.

As you already say you know the rule that says a rhino can not be on top of a rhino (despite the 2 rhinos not sharing the same 3d space, due to the laws of physics), show how a valkyrie's hull on top of a rhino is different. The rules for skimmers pretty clearly say that you can move over units, but can not end on top of them.

And the rules for 'Ruins' are an exception that allows models to be underneath each other when on different levels--as we are not discussing ruins this does not support your position.

Gwar check your PM.

It specifically states you cannot put models on top of other models, they are treated as impossible terrain.

The game is specifically, consistently reiterated as a real 3d game played with 3d models. You may play with no terrain on entirely flat boards, my one has hills (3d terrain), buildings and ruins. You measure in 3d (except for flamers, which guess what ARE AN EXCEPTION to allow an easier abstraction)

The onus of proof is on you to show that you cannot place models more than 1" away from enemy models, and you must PROVE that this measurement is only in 2D space.

You can't do so, but try it. This has been argued before now, in the other big Valk thread, and the conclusion was that this game is 3D. Earth shattering I know.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It specifically states you cannot put models on top of other models, they are treated as impossible terrain.

The game is specifically, consistently reiterated as a real 3d game played with 3d models. You may play with no terrain on entirely flat boards, my one has hills (3d terrain), buildings and ruins. You measure in 3d (except for flamers, which guess what ARE AN EXCEPTION to allow an easier abstraction)

The onus of proof is on you to show that you cannot place models more than 1" away from enemy models, and you must PROVE that this measurement is only in 2D space.

You can't do so, but try it. This has been argued before now, in the other big Valk thread, and the conclusion was that this game is 3D. Earth shattering I know.

I agree with Nosferau101. The onus is on YOU to prove it, not me, as the rules actually back up my view.

DevianID wrote:You are trying to say that the rule lets you do something, the onus of proof is on you.

As you already say you know the rule that says a rhino can not be on top of a rhino (despite the 2 rhinos not sharing the same 3d space, due to the laws of physics), show how a valkyrie's hull on top of a rhino is different. The rules for skimmers pretty clearly say that you can move over units, but can not end on top of them.

And the rules for 'Ruins' are an exception that allows models to be underneath each other when on different levels--as we are not discussing ruins this does not support your position.

There are seven pages of quotes.

That said: Page 3 "Measuring Distances" lets you know to use the hull or the base.
Page 71 also has a section "Measuring Distances" that lets you know to ignore the base except when assaulting - Measure from the hull. (Note: one is still allowed to measure to/from the hull during assaults, it is simply no longer the ONLY part available).

Right under that (also on page 71) is the fun rule: "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either." It goes on to say that the skimmer must be set down on the table. Interesting. It does not say "cannot end their move above, or near" - just not "on top of". So long as the skimmer is not set on the top of the model, it can certainly be above it.

(note: the immobilized thing has been beaten to death as well - "if possible" ftw)

If you want to ask about rhinos - this is the wrong thread ( though I daresay it will be answered here anyway).

kirsanth wrote:If you want to ask about rhinos - this is the wrong thread ( though I daresay it will be answered here anyway).

We did answer it, and you hit the nail on the head. Above != On top of.

I guess I fail to see how 'above' and 'on top of' are different... You all agree that you cant put anything on top of another model, but how is something that is above another thing (a valkyrie above an infantry) not considered on top of (a valkyrie on top of an infantry).

DevianID wrote:I guess I fail to see how 'above' and 'on top of' are different... You all agree that you cant put anything on top of another model, but how is something that is above another thing (a valkyrie above an infantry) not considered on top of (a valkyrie on top of an infantry).

Because of the fact that a) the game is played in 3 dimension and b) the English language.

DevianID wrote:I guess I fail to see how 'above' and 'on top of' are different... You all agree that you cant put anything on top of another model, but how is something that is above another thing (a valkyrie above an infantry) not considered on top of (a valkyrie on top of an infantry).

On Top Implies that the models have been physically placed on top of one another (i.e. Rhino over Rhino). Above, means, well, above (Valkyrie, Fliers, Skimmers with a Tall Base etc)

jbalthis wrote:I guess becuase I work with aircrafts it makes more sense to me. But a hull isn't a wing.

I'm just trying to establish what a hull actually is on a valkyrie. And once that's established, then the rest of the rules should be applied.

A hull is "the body of a ship"
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage A fuselage is the body of an aircraft. Also having done some research on aircrafts, hull refers to the body of an aircraft.

It was pretty funny when I asked about 10 marines this question. We sat around for about 15 minutes debating and googling what a hull on an aircraft was. One guy even went so far as to grab a hull of an aircraft and show me. LOL.

Having a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and having looked at the model, I agree that these wings are not part of this fuselage, but wings (or flying surfaces, to be techincal) can be part of the fuselage if constructed to share structure. I would say this applies for Fire Prisms.

I am willing to work with the idea that hull = fuselage, though I do not like that usage.

Hull in this instance means Fuselage and Wings.

Well I got into this topic to try and provide some insight, and have hit a wall of semantics. Like the above, where apparently the defination of hull has changed to mean wings and fuselage--despite what the dictionary and people in the aeronautical field have said. I mean, who does the dictionary think it is to 'define' what something is, hehe?

Also, people seem to feel that a valkyrie that is above a model is not both on top of that model and on top of the table directly underneath that model?

Somehow we lost sight that the entire point is to make the Valkyrie, which does not fit the conventions of RAW, playable. A valkyrie, by standard definations, does not have a hull. A valkyrie looks like an aircraft, and aircraft have wings and a fuselage--not hulls.

Also, people are arguing that a rhino above a rhino is different than a valkyrie above a rhino. That is pretty much gonna have to be my cue that double standards are being used by people, and they dont want to see anything different. If thats the case, then what is the point of engaging in logical discourse?

DevianID wrote:Well I got into this topic to try and provide some insight, and have hit a wall of semantics. Like the above, where apparently the defination of hull has changed to mean wings and fuselage--despite what the dictionary and people in the aeronautical field have said. I mean, who does the dictionary think it is to 'define' what something is, hehe?

Also, people seem to feel that a valkyrie that is above a model is not both on top of that model and on top of the table directly underneath that model?

Somehow we lost sight that the entire point is to make the Valkyrie, which does not fit the conventions of RAW, playable. A valkyrie, by standard definations, does not have a hull. A valkyrie looks like an aircraft, and aircraft have wings and a fuselage--not hulls.

Also, people are arguing that a rhino above a rhino is different than a valkyrie above a rhino. That is pretty much gonna have to be my cue that double standards are being used by people, and they dont want to see anything different. If thats the case, then what is the point of engaging in logical discourse?

Because Gwar is basing his point on the in-game definition of "hull" which is pretty much any part of a vehicle which is not a minor detail.

If you claim that no unit may exist under the wings of a valkyrie... well how exactly to you manage to assault one from anywhere but the front then?

Saying "I'm right but nobody else understands" is not a classy way out of a rules discussion, BTW.

willydstyle wrote:Because Gwar is basing his point on the in-game definition of "hull" which is pretty much any part of a vehicle which is not a minor detail.

If you claim that no unit may exist under the wings of a valkyrie... well how exactly to you manage to assault one from anywhere but the front then?

Saying "I'm right but nobody else understands" is not a classy way out of a rules discussion, BTW.

QFT. I find that Appeals to Authority and Personal Attacks are the last refuge of someone who knows they have been defeated but has no wish to admit it.

And once again, remember that the valk is not an aircraft in 40k terms. It is a skimmer and as such it indeed does have a hull instead of fuselage and wings. The only wings that 40k defines are the appendages that some infantry and MC can have.

The real world and 40k do overlap, as does the real world and aeronautics. But words in 40k do not mean the same thing that they mean in other specialized fields, and all too often 40k words do not have the same meaning as their general definition in the real world. We have to deal with the contexts that GW has spun around words over the years, and the definitions that they give us.


Sliggoth

kirsanth wrote:Wings are defined only when attached to non-vehicles.

Even Apoc (with bona fide flyers) does not touch the term. LOS is to (and from) the model.

Any other use is RAI.

shrug

DevianID wrote:Also, people are arguing that a rhino above a rhino is different than a valkyrie above a rhino. That is pretty much gonna have to be my cue that double standards are being used by people, and they dont want to see anything different. If thats the case, then what is the point of engaging in logical discourse?

Erm, no.

"on top of" means physically placed on top of another model. Above means there is a space in between youself and the object you are above.

You are on top of a building, but above the ground, all at the same time.

It isn't double standards, just your inability to realise the game is in 3 dimensions. Looking from above is treating the game in two dimensions - you only do that in specific cases where it tells you to do so. Measuring distances is not one of those occasions.

I kind of see what Devian is saying. I dont see how the Valkyrie being partly over a rhino is any different than a rhino being on top of a rhino. Someone had a nifty Tzeentch rhino that floats - does that mean it can be "above" other rhinos? Or are people looking at it this way because the Valk is an airplane and a rhino is a tank? Skimmers are no different than anything else at the end of movement.

I think the field should be considered 2d looking down from a birds eye view. Aside from ruins, which have specific rules, no unit should be overlapping another, nor should they be off the table at the end of your movement turn. Because of this, I feel that a unit should be able to assault the valkyrie as if it were flat on the table, meaning I can assault it from a few inches away from its base as long as Im directly next to, say, the wing (but below it).

Seems to me this would make the most sense.

I am not saying I am right and no one understands. I am saying that the rules are flawed, do not cover the variation present across the multitude of 40k armies, and that some concessions are necessary.

My original post was that the simplest way to deal with the issues found in the valk is simply to ignore the wings all together--which is how you can actually assault the darn things without occuping the same space as another model.

You know, these concessions are kind of like how the petals of a drop pod dont really count for anything when the pod lands, and you can stand on top of them and what not. Thats not really in the BRB, but this solution arose out of necessity.

As for 'hull' issues--everything that is not a minor detail is not automaticly hull. Just like everything that is not minor detail on an infantry model is not automaticly body. Take a space marine biker, for example--no one usually argues that the bike is meerly ornamental. However, the bike also is not part of the model's body... so what is it? Can it be targeted? Is the entire bike ignored?

What about shooting, where you must measure from the model's eyes? Well what if you model has no eyes? Are you unable to shoot?

Finally, what if your skimmer does not have a nominal hull or turret? What if it is more appropriately described as wings and fuselage?

RAW has its place, guys. But the Valkyrie breaks as many conventions as a tau gun drone does... On one hand, you can ignore the wings, exactly like you EXPLICITLY ignore the wings on non-vehicle models.

On the other hand, the hand I dont like to shake with, you can enforce some notion that the wing simply MUST be hull, it CANT be anything else, or the rest of the rules will collapse.

And when you do this, you have all my posts detailing the problems with such an arrangement. Like, of course, the issue that the model cant disembark its passengers, as the wing 'hull' is on top of the access points. And the issue that only very tall models can assault the thing, due to not being able to move underneath the hull to get to the base.

So I dont know what is most convient--neither solution is RAW. My attempted solution tries to address issues that would otherwise make the model unplayable. The downside is that you cant shoot the wings any more. I feel that this is a pretty decent trade, seeing as the valk is still a giant elevated bulls eye, even without the wings to target.

So you admit your entire argument is "I wanna change the rules because I do not like them".

No matter how much you rant and rave, being able to walk under the wings of a Valkyrie IS RaW.

Gwar! wrote:So you admit your entire argument is "I wanna change the rules because I do not like them".

No matter how much you rant and rave, being able to walk under the wings of a Valkyrie IS RaW.

I dont think thats what hes saying. I think hes just saying that people are giving the valkyrie special rules, but arnt giving the same special rules to other vehicles. A rhino ontop of another rhino is indeed, not occupying the same space.

The good news is, it doesn't even matter what you call the hull for this particular argument we are having. Ignoring the difficulty in debarking units from valkyries, the only other real issue is that of where you can put the valkyrie when it ends its move.

The only relevant rules passages are as follows.

Pg. 11 MODELS IN THE WAY
"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the movement and shooting phases - this is only possible during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting."

This is the biggest rule to focus on. We establish here that a model is defined as its base and its hull. Thats important for later. We also establish where a model can't be. It can not be in the space of any model, and it also can not be within 1" of an enemy model.

To recap, neither the hull nor the base may be in the space occupied by a friendly model, nor may they be within an inch of an enemy model.

As for the 'gap' between models... the gap concept is discussed later in the rulebook when talking about cover save exceptions. GW defines gaps between models as only as tall as the models in question. See page 22 "firing through units or area terrain" for more on 'gaps'

Pg. 71 MOVING SKIMMERS
"Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they can not end their move on top of either. Note that a skimmer must be set down on the table and left in place at the end of its move - it cannot be left hovering in mid-air!

Skimmers can move over all terrain, ignoring all penalties for difficult terrain and tests for dangerous terrain. However, if a moving skimmer starts or ends its move in difficult or dangerous terrain, it must make a dangerous terrain test. A skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must take a dangerous terrain test."

For every other model, including valkyries, the model can only be defined by a maximum of two elements. Base and hull. If neither the base nor the hull are touching a friendly model, or terrain, or are within 1" of enemy models, how can you possibly attempt to say that the model is 'in' something. Our only barometer for where a model is is clearly defined by the 11th page of the rulebook. The air surrounding, above and below a model, or above and below a piece of terrain, is just that... air.

Using this last rule we establish that, during a move, a skimmers base and hull may pass over friendly and enemy models, difficult and dangerous terrain without penalty, and impassable terrain.

Some may jump on the last sentence of this rules passage and say "hey, friendly and enemy models are impassable terrain, therefore you'll have to take a dangerous terrain test if your wing is over one of them". But we have both the 'on top of' line after, and the precedent that the space above models is not considered impassable terrain because then models could not occupy the space above other models in a ruin.

It is an unfortunate word choice to use the word 'over' in that last sentence, but it is immediately qualified and defined by the next thought "... actually place the model on top of it."

Where to put the valkyrie isn't really a problem. It's how to disembark and how to contest an objective. As long as a valkyrie (or any future model equipped with this "here to stay" flying stand) is worth a kill point, it is deserving of the ability to contest an objective. And any transport in 40k should be able to legally deploy their own passengers without needing to travel flat out. But thats another can of worms...

Add to that the rule that the skimmer base is irrelvent outside of assaults (as per the pages of quotes) and issues are harder to find.

Sill on pg 71