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.

Ok, got my valks, just finished building one and actually seeing it in hand a whole host of problems for gameplay spring to mind since GW did not bother to say anything about how to handle this base that is totally different from any other base type in the game. (way to go guys) I looked and other than disembarkation I did not see any threads on this, but if I missed it I apologize.

1. Disembarkation ( I see that it has been discussed before but per RAW there would be no way to disembark even though it clearly talks about disembarking normaly in the codex. )

2. Movement ( The size of the model will make it all but impossible to make a 12" move over substantial terrain or models (friendly or enemy) without some portion of the model remaining over the terrain. Does this mean if any part of my gigantic Valkyrie is over difficult terrain I have to make a test, by RAW it would seem to )

3. Sanctuary ( an inquisitor with sanctuary inside one of these creates at foot 14" wall of deamon stoppage )

4. Movement again ( it is impossibe to move a valkyrie on to the board with a 6" move, half the frakkng model will still be off the table!)

The main problem seems to be to me that this thing is so large that it will be extremely difficult to actually use it with the skimmer rules that were never intended to cover this kind of model. Did GW not bother to playtest this thing at all? Im very frustrated as I am totally in love with the models and want to use them for my tournament army but I can just hear the living hell that I will get every time I play TFG using Valkyrie Vendettas.

Just wondering how anyone else plans to handle this. God I hope Yak puts out a signifigant INAT FAQ update for flying bases in regular 40k soon as every where I play aknowleges the INAT FAQ

thanks in advance guys.

bigtmac68 wrote:
1. Disembarkation ( I see that it has been discussed before but per RAW there would be no way to disembark even though it clearly talks about disembarking normaly in the codex. )

2. Movement ( The size of the model will make it all but impossible to make a 12" move over substantial terrain or models (friendly or enemy) without some portion of the model remaining over the terrain. Does this mean if any part of my gigantic Valkyrie is over difficult terrain I have to make a test, by RAW it would seem to )

3. Sanctuary ( an inquisitor with sanctuary inside one of these creates at foot 14" wall of deamon stoppage )

4. Movement again ( it is impossibe to move a valkyrie on to the board with a 6" move, half the frakkng model will still be off the table!)

Yeah, you are not alone with these questions. But you can get forward by applying a bit of ( horror! ) common sense and duct tape.

1) RAW no, but as discussed elsewhere many will play it by measuring vertically the point of the doors.
2) Tentative yes. But again something you want to discuss with your opponent.
3) 3" measured from the "hull" ( since you´re embarked ) and the Valk is about 6" up in the air. So theoretically there is a "blind spot" in the bubble that deamons can see
through/under.
4) If I remember correctly this is addressed in the INAT FAQ. Short answer: yes, you can move the model on to the board.

bigtmac68 wrote:Ok, got my valks, just finished building one and actually seeing it in hand a whole host of problems for gameplay spring to mind since GW did not bother to say anything about how to handle this base that is totally different from any other base type in the game. (way to go guys) I looked and other than disembarkation I did not see any threads on this, but if I missed it I apologize.

1. Disembarkation ( I see that it has been discussed before but per RAW there would be no way to disembark even though it clearly talks about disembarking normaly in the codex. )

As it has been stated its just a horizontal measure from the hull, easiest way to do this would be to place the model on the table top and disembark, then place it back on its stand. It is a lot of fuss for a model, but that's the world of "fliers."

bigtmac68 wrote:2. Movement ( The size of the model will make it all but impossible to make a 12" move over substantial terrain or models (friendly or enemy) without some portion of the model remaining over the terrain. Does this mean if any part of my gigantic Valkyrie is over difficult terrain I have to make a test, by RAW it would seem to )

Most players will go with the size of the base and if it is on the table or not. A Land Raider or Battlewagon can not fit in a 6" deployment zone if put perpendicular to your starting edge either.

bigtmac68 wrote:3. Sanctuary ( an inquisitor with sanctuary inside one of these creates at foot 14" wall of deamon stoppage )

Personally, I would measure this from the main body of the Valkyrie and not from the extended wings.

bigtmac68 wrote:4. Movement again ( it is impossibe to move a valkyrie on to the board with a 6" move, half the frakkng model will still be off the table!)

Front of base is where I would measure movement from, just like every other skimmer I have ever used.

bigtmac68 wrote:The main problem seems to be to me that this thing is so large that it will be extremely difficult to actually use it with the skimmer rules that were never intended to cover this kind of model. Did GW not bother to playtest this thing at all? Im very frustrated as I am totally in love with the models and want to use them for my tournament army but I can just hear the living hell that I will get every time I play TFG using Valkyrie Vendettas.

Just wondering how anyone else plans to handle this. God I hope Yak puts out a signifigant INAT FAQ update for flying bases in regular 40k soon as every where I play aknowleges the INAT FAQ

thanks in advance guys.

The basic concept of the Valkyrie has been in use for over 4 years, as it was introduced in IA: Volume One Imperial Guard and Navy. The new adjustment of it being a Skimmer and not a Flier is the biggest change.

bigtmac68 wrote:1. Disembarkation ( I see that it has been discussed before but per RAW there would be no way to disembark even though it clearly talks about disembarking normally in the codex. )

I think what's going to end up happening is that everyone is going to play that measuring ranges to and from the Valkyrie/Vendetta is done ignoring its vertical height. I know that's the direction I'm personally going to argue for when we discuss this issue for the INAT FAQ.

2. Movement ( The size of the model will make it all but impossible to make a 12" move over substantial terrain or models (friendly or enemy) without some portion of the model remaining over the terrain. Does this mean if any part of my gigantic Valkyrie is over difficult terrain I have to make a test, by RAW it would seem to )

It all depends on what you consider the "hull" of the model, because as described on page 3 of the rulebook, that is where all measurements are made for a vehicle. I personally believe the "hull" for the Valk does not include the wings on either side or the tail-wings on the back and that's the angle I think I'm going to (again) push for in the INAT.

3. Sanctuary ( an inquisitor with sanctuary inside one of these creates at foot 14" wall of deamon stoppage )

This is a long-standing 'issue' that applies to all sorts of vehicles, not the least of which is the Land Raider as well. Again, if you play that the "hull" doesn't include the wings then the bubble isn't quite so bad.

4. Movement again ( it is impossibe to move a valkyrie on to the board with a 6" move, half the frakkng model will still be off the table!)

Again, this is a long standing issue with many vehicles, one the worst offenders being the Monolith and Baneblades which are bigger than 6" but can't move more than that on the turn they arrive!

Most people I've encountered simply allow the back of a vehicle to 'hang' off the board in such a situation so this is the ruling we went with in the INAT FAQ.

The main problem seems to be to me that this thing is so large that it will be extremely difficult to actually use it with the skimmer rules that were never intended to cover this kind of model. Did GW not bother to playtest this thing at all? Im very frustrated as I am totally in love with the models and want to use them for my tournament army but I can just hear the living hell that I will get every time I play TFG using Valkyrie Vendettas.

Just wondering how anyone else plans to handle this. God I hope Yak puts out a signifigant INAT FAQ update for flying bases in regular 40k soon as every where I play aknowleges the INAT FAQ

thanks in advance guys.

I don't think it will be as bad as you think. After it is out a while and everyone gets used to seeing it on the table these things start to settle into one or two main ways that most everyone plays it. Even if you can't get your local guys to play by the INAT FAQ ruling we come out with, I'm sure you'll still be able to come up with some compromise that will allow you to enjoy your models!

As for when we're going to release an update for the INAT FAQ, last year after Adepticon we had the switch over to 5th edition so the entire FAQ had to be re-written pretty much from scratch. This year I don't have this problem so the plan is to try to put out a new update each time a codex is released so that when Adepticon rolls around next year we have much less stuff to argue about at the last second.

So I'm planning to let the IG questions percolate for a few weeks (there's a sticky at the top of this forum for that reason) and then I'll start to get to work on editing the FAQ.

yakface wrote:

It all depends on what you consider the "hull" of the model, because as described on page 3 of the rulebook, that is where all measurements are made for a vehicle. I personally believe the "hull" for the Valk does not include the wings on either side or the tail-wings on the back and that's the angle I think I'm going to (again) push for in the INAT.

I would disagree with this. The wings are not a seperate part of the vehicle. The Valk is a solid peice, and I think without exception we consider anything that cannot be moved as part of the hull, such as Land Riader tracks, Falcon exhausts, even though by definition these are not part of the hull. An opposite example would be drop pod doors. And consider to yourself if drop pods were made so that the doors were cast into the body and could not be moved even if you wanted to. How would they have been handled differently?

Just my .02

GMMStudios wrote:
I would disagree with this. The wings are not a seperate part of the vehicle. The Valk is a solid peice, and I think without exception we consider anything that cannot be moved as part of the hull, such as Land Riader tracks, Falcon exhausts, even though by definition these are not part of the hull. An opposite example would be drop pod doors. And consider to yourself if drop pods were made so that the doors were cast into the body and could not be moved even if you wanted to. How would they have been handled differently?

Just my .02

I hear ya man. This is certainly not a black-and-white issue since GW simply says "hull" but doesn't really give many guidelines on what they're talking about exactly, especially considering the variety of vehicle models they have.

What they do give us is the rulebook diagram on page 3 that shows the reinforced ram on an Ork Trukk is not considered part of the hull and this blurb on page 56:

"Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."


I guess it is a pretty big stretch to consider the wings on a Valk a 'decorative element' but at the same time I do believe playing that all portions of the wings counting as the hull is (as the OP indicated) going to make it nearly impossible to use the model except in a very wide-open table, especially those crazy wings that extend off the back of the Valk.

It is a tough one indeed. . .

I don't think any 40k army has dozer blades/rams that are considered part of the hull,(edit: Duh, it says right there in your quote ) but you are right it is an example of being fixed and not part of the hull, I overlooked those.

But yes, it is going to be an awkward model. Time and discussion will tell though.

Just out of curiosity , does Imperial Armor books ever covered anything like this about where to measure since they have so many giant fliers.

LunaHound wrote:Just out of curiosity , does Imperial Armor books ever covered anything like this about where to measure since they have so many giant fliers.

Oh god no!

Imperial Armor (and even the Apocalypse books) tend far worse at covering weird situations involving flyers! Apocalypse is better in that it actually addresses some weird situations (like saying Flyers can't be hit by template weapons, for example) but there has never been any guidelines about how to handle moving under flyers or if it is possible.

Yes, in fairness is there really any difference between the wings on the side of a valkerie and on the front of an eldar falcon?

From the point of view of tournaments that I'm involved in running I sense an addition to the FAQ about what counts as part of the vehicle or not. Similar to how common clarifications are asked for regarding drop pod doors.

If you count the extended wings as hull, then the model is horribly massive. I have always played fliers that can unload troops as the cargo area being hull for measuring distance from. Distance to has always been the full model.

Hymirl wrote:Yes, in fairness is there really any difference between the wings on the side of a valkerie and on the front of an eldar falcon?

That is a good point.

yakface wrote:

Oh god no!

Imperial Armor (and even the Apocalypse books) tend far worse at covering weird situations involving flyers! Apocalypse is better in that it actually addresses some weird situations (like saying Flyers can't be hit by template weapons, for example) but there has never been any guidelines about how to handle moving under flyers or if it is possible.

Yes IA rules tend to be overcosted and poorly written, but then again they don't really need to be (for the company that is) because they aren't usable in tournaments and things like that. Of course it would be great if they were but FW has no reason to tighten them up. IA rules are opponents consent and often multiple detachment to begin with, so if you can work through that then you can work through the rules with your opponent. But ever since Apoc came along things like that haven't mattered as much.

bigtmac68 wrote:Did GW not bother to playtest this thing at all?

GW and Playtesting are two things that never mix. Just my two cents.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hull

Webster's dictionary defines the hull as the main part of the craft minus any extraneous pieces. Does this suitably fix problems two and three?

Slackermagee wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hull

Webster's dictionary defines the hull as the main part of the craft minus any extraneous pieces. Does this suitably fix problems two and three?

No, for a number of reasons.

1) GW is a English Company, and writes their rulebooks/Codex's in English, so using an American language dictionary is about as useful as using a French one.
2) GW's Definition of Hull may or may not Match up to the Real World. That's just how they roll.

Yes GW tends to make its own dictionary of words.

GMMStudios wrote:Yes GW tends to make its own dictionary of words.

yup. It's a deliciously English Tradition, dating back to the time of Shakespeare, who invented so many words that many of them got absorbed into the actual English Language

Gwar! wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:Yes GW tends to make its own dictionary of words.

yup. It's a deliciously English Tradition, dating back to the time of Shakespeare, who invented so many words that many of them got absorbed into the actual English Language

More like, it's a deliciously [everyone's] tradition, dating back to the time of [the beginning of language.]

Like Gwar!

My only problems with the Valk so far have been fitting the flying base into its holder on the hull. It won't fit at first! You actually have to sand down the plastic (trial and error style) until you can get it to fit. Makes me a little nervous, because I don't want it slipping off the base during gameplay...

I guess I could always glue it, but I need to be able to take it off for immobilization or wrecked damage results.

The definition of "hull" does no good because the rulebook includes an example stating that the legs on a Defiler are considered "hull." The wings seem (to me) to be just as much part of the hull as the legs of a walking artillary piece. Let's hear it for the clarity of common language and usage.

synchronicity wrote:I guess I could always glue it, but I need to be able to take it off for immobilization or wrecked damage results.

Nope, the BRB is very exacting that if it is glued in place, you leave it there. While this makes sence for Skimmers with Grav Plates, for a Engined vehicle it makes none, but that's how they roll

But you could invest in some magnets. They are so cheap nowadays, and you can get such tiny ones, there is no real reason other than "I Cannot be bothered ordering them" to not use them.

synchronicity wrote:My only problems with the Valk so far have been fitting the flying base into its holder on the hull. It won't fit at first! You actually have to sand down the plastic (trial and error style) until you can get it to fit. Makes me a little nervous, because I don't want it slipping off the base during gameplay...

I guess I could always glue it, but I need to be able to take it off for immobilization or wrecked damage results.

Oh, it will fit, but you gotta force it alittle and then you'll hear this horrible *POP!* sound and its in, and will go in rather easily afterward.

Place a piece of transport foam (EMPTY!) on a table edge, place the Valkyrie upside down and then push the flight stand onto it. Just make sure your glue is dry for the holder piece before attempting this, as you don't want to glue the flight stand to it or the Valkyrie.

My only problem was glueing the rear hatch on up side down (or should that be inside out?) Anyway I fixed it without too much bother. Now the door wont stay shut but hey, I'll find a way. Did any one else notice the examples in white dwarf have the rear cross fin on backwards? (aerofoils facing forward?) Same thing in the assembly booklet, lol, ok for putting it together, back to front for the painted model.. ah well. Back to the main point of this; I would measure to the "cabin" or transport part for movement. Yes it will create problems but the whole game is a "problem", just roll with it (pun intended)

I don't think there is any arguement you can make that would discount the Wings as part of the vehicles hull.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hull

Webster's dictionary defines the hull as the main part of the craft minus any extraneous pieces. Does this suitably fix problems two and three?

No, for a number of reasons.

1) GW is a English Company, and writes their rulebooks/Codex's in English, so using an American language dictionary is about as useful as using a French one.

Here is the british definition:

http://www.askoxford.com:80/concise_oed/hull_1?view=uk

2) GW's Definition of Hull may or may not Match up to the Real World. That's just how they roll.

Agreed to a point, but 40K is a permissible rule set, if it does not say you can do it, you cannot do it.

Hull =/= Wings, from the british definition of Hull above. Until GW says Wings are included as part of the Hull, you may not embark/disembark from them.


Another way to look at this difficulty, the Drop Pod, are you allow to embark/disembark from the edge of the door when they are fully extended? Take the precedence from that and apply it to the Valkyrie.

Mahu wrote:I don't think there is any arguement you can make that would discount the Wings as part of the vehicles hull.

Except that wings are wings and not the hull by definition. An aircraft is comprised of a fuselage (the hull) and the wings. The wings are clearly a separate entity.

This sounds like a headache on the table. How about painting a shadow of the valk on the giant base, and do all measurements from the edges of the shadow?

To the people buying 9 of these, how on earth will this even fit on a table, and how will you maneuver your arms around the bases to actually play a mini's game? This all seems poorly (if at all) thought out. Rad model though.

InquisitorFabius wrote:

As it has been stated its just a horizontal measure from the hull, easiest way to do this would be to place the model on the table top and disembark, then place it back on its stand. It is a lot of fuss for a model, but that's the world of "fliers."

I'm pretty sure this is how they were playing this in the last White Dwarf. Just look at all those skimmers that are flat on the table. I think they were dropping it down for disembarkation and then putting it back on its stand for everything else.

Also worth noting, not considering the wings part of the hull will inevitably lead to stupid situations where the Valkyrie can use terrain in order to be able to fire weapons, but not be fired upon due to the placement of the missiles on the wings themselves (or lascannons, in the case of the Vendetta).

While the power balance consequences shouldn't necessarily be taken into account in a RAW reading, the INAT FAQ often goes quite a bit beyond that, so it may be worth taking into consideration in such arguments.