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.

Except the rules for Skimmers clearly state that you measure everything to and from the Hull, not the base. The base is there only to stand the model up and to allow it to be assaulted

Necron destroyers don't have hulls, how would you measure this? There's a few exceptions to this rule and GW's rules aren't perfect, that's why faqs exist.

Also, valkries are some of the tallest, and biggest models in the game, and with this you run into a lot of problems, such as.

When measuring up, do you count the height of the valkyire as 3 inches like you would each level of terrian, or would you measure the full 5-6 inches up?

If the ladder is true, than it's redicilous because of the fact a melta gun would almost never get it's 2d6 armor pen vs a valkyire because of the fact it's around 5-6 up off the table.

Why do the troops get to make an exception to the rule when disembarking? They should have to move 5-6 inches down, which makes it impossible to disembark, and stay within 2 inches of the exits.

So, like a necron destroyer, I say make everything easy and measure from the base for everything.

1) Necron Destroyers aren't Skimmers.

2) It says hull, period. It is a problem yes, but only so much. We got a player around here who just puts his bojectives higher so he can reach it.

Frazzled wrote:GWAR you're a RAW guy (see I didn't say anal at all ). In the real world to clarify no issue beforehand, if your opponent stated "due to the base height there's been some issue about distances, deployment etc. As this is a skimmer and to avoid problems we're going to use this mark (mark 1.5 in or whatever the height of a standard skimer base is) for height purposes." Would that work for you as a RAW player, or would I have to get out the axe...

You would have to get out the Axe and Chop down the base!

Personaly, I feel that the base came with it for a reason. It has many Advantages, and some disadvantages. I don't see why people are getting so buthurt about claiming objectives on the ground. I don't get buthurt when my Rhinos can't claim objectives 6" up do I?

However, by the RaW, you may alter the RaW by mutual agreement. While I would not like it (play your army with all the inherent advantages and disadvantages, don;t try to mess about with it to get an edge) I wouldn't be too fussed either way. I'd just make sure I kill it first to make you cry

Kreedos wrote:

Except the rules for Skimmers clearly state that you measure everything to and from the Hull, not the base. The base is there only to stand the model up and to allow it to be assaulted

Necron destroyers don't have hulls, how would you measure this? There's a few exceptions to this rule and GW's rules aren't perfect, that's why faqs exist.

Necron Destoyers are Jetbikes, not Skimmers. Therefore you measure to the base, because that is what the rules for Jetbikes tell us to do. We measure to the Hull for Skimmers because that is what the rules tell us to do. Please, double check the rules before posting in a Rules debate!

It came with that base because originally it was a flyer from FW, and still can be used as a flyer in the abortion that is Apocalypse. the hash mark idea has been suggested here and I have used it with conversions in the past to be as conservative as the original vehicle/creature.

The only time I've seen objective in the air is a building so its a moot point for base height for me.

My friend who is trying Air Cav deploys them in all sorts of places that the Valk/Detta can still get. Buildings, large hills, turbines, anything that is high enough will work.

Necron Destoyers are Jetbikes, not Skimmers. Therefore you measure to the base, because that is what the rules for Jetbikes tell us to do. We measure to the Hull for Skimmers because that is what the rules tell us to do. Please, double check the rules before posting in a Rules debate!

I just double checked this and you're right, I thought they were skimmers that moved like jet bikes.

However this

Please, double check the rules before posting in a Rules debate!

is unessessary to state. The confusion between jet bikes and skimmers are an easy mistake to make, and I don't appreciate the insulting comment.

However, how about this one.

Monoliths don't come with a stand unless you special order it, get it with the 2 pack that isn't offered anymore, or you custom make your own.

From what I've heard monoliths block line of sight, because of this fact, but when measuring to fire at a monolith, would you pretend that that it was something like 2 to 3 inches in the air, or is this only true when it's on base?

This is kind of the same thing where the interpertation of height comes into play.

Frazzled wrote:As this is a skimmer and to avoid problems we're going to use this mark (mark 1.5 in or whatever the height of a standard skimer base is) for height purposes." Would that work for you as a RAW player, or would I have to get out the axe...

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but have to say that of the various possible solutions to the problem, this is the one that I would object to.

I'd be happy to allow you to measure deployment and objectives horizontally. I'd be happy to allow you to deploy as close as possible to the vehicle and call it good enough. I'd be happy to allow you to measure from the base. And I wouldn't even blink if you just shortened the base to the same height as the other skimmer bases.

But in a game that relies on the actual, physical positions of the models for LOS purposes, I can't even begin to express how much I dislike the practice of pretending that this model here is somewhere or something it's not. It's a 'solution' that is just asking for trouble, as you find yourself drawing LOS to empty air and trying to agree with your opponent as to whether or not the model would actually be there or not in its imaginary position.

But maybe that's just me.

@Kreedos: No Offence intended. Just some friendly advice.

Gwar! wrote:@Kreedos: No Offence intended. Just some friendly advice.

No problem =), Thanks.

Kreedos wrote:

However, how about this one.

Monoliths don't come with a stand unless you special order it, get it with the 2 pack that isn't offered anymore, or you custom make your own.

From what I've heard monoliths block line of sight, because of this fact, but when measuring to fire at a monolith, would you pretend that that it was something like 2 to 3 inches in the air, or is this only true when it's on base?

This is kind of the same thing where the interpertation of height comes into play.

If they Monolith doesn't come with a base then, no one is obliged to use one, however since it is a skimmer you may use one.

From what I've heard monoliths block line of sight,

Everything blocks LOS, so yes, that's correct.

because of this fact, but when measuring to fire at a monolith, would you pretend that that it was something like 2 to 3 inches in the air, or is this only true when it's on base?

LOS in 40K uses the actual, physical placement of the model. If the monolith is sitting on the table, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. If it's on a flight stand, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. The rules never tell you to pretend that the model is somewhere that it's not.

because of this fact, but when measuring to fire at a monolith, would you pretend that that it was something like 2 to 3 inches in the air, or is this only true when it's on base?

LOS in 40K uses the actual, physical placement of the model. If the monolith is sitting on the table, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. If it's on a flight stand, then that's where it is when you draw LOS to it or past it. The rules never tell you to pretend that the model is somewhere that it's not.

Good point. I stand corrected.

insaniak wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As this is a skimmer and to avoid problems we're going to use this mark (mark 1.5 in or whatever the height of a standard skimer base is) for height purposes." Would that work for you as a RAW player, or would I have to get out the axe...

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but have to say that of the various possible solutions to the problem, this is the one that I would object to.

I'd be happy to allow you to measure deployment and objectives horizontally. I'd be happy to allow you to deploy as close as possible to the vehicle and call it good enough. I'd be happy to allow you to measure from the base. And I wouldn't even blink if you just shortened the base to the same height as the other skimmer bases.

But in a game that relies on the actual, physical positions of the models for LOS purposes, I can't even begin to express how much I dislike the practice of pretending that this model here is somewhere or something it's not. It's a 'solution' that is just asking for trouble, as you find yourself drawing LOS to empty air and trying to agree with your opponent as to whether or not the model would actually be there or not in its imaginary position.

But maybe that's just me.

This is very OT, but why? I've done such in the past to avoid the "crouching tiger wraithlord" controversy with conversions. Usually an banner or stand in is at the point where the official model would have a weapon or whatever. My opponents have always been happy with the result as I was clearly not trying to cheat them. Indeed my war altar stand in for a defiler was in the IW list garnering best sportsman.

Because it's so much harder than simply using the model as it is on the table.

I just don't see the point of having a model there at all if you're just going to spend the whole game imagining that it's somewhere else.

Sure, it's not that difficult in most situations... but it is creating a ready source of arguments, as both players have to agree as to whether a given point in empty air actually contains part of the virtual model or not.

And there are much easier alternatives.

I only read the initial post but I can see this is getting a bit full. I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame. If thats gonna be your game. Just glue a ball joint at the top of the base and angle down the Valk so the wing comes within 3" when you need to capture. your still playing it on the base and now you are within 3".

Still not good. Saw the pole it comes with in half and have two posts supporting the valk, bringing it closer to the ground and at the same time this makes it harder to accidentally knock over. Its still on the base.

LAME

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?

Of course, just model it on a Ball joint and... wait no that doesn't work.

Gladly my Valkyries are Forgeworld and don't come with any bases at all, so I can hide them behind buildings, take objectives and deploy my troops!

smart_alex wrote:I only read the initial post but I can see this is getting a bit full. I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame. If thats gonna be your game. Just glue a ball joint at the top of the base and angle down the Valk so the wing comes within 3" when you need to capture. your still playing it on the base and now you are within 3".

Still not good. Saw the pole it comes with in half and have two posts supporting the valk, bringing it closer to the ground and at the same time this makes it harder to accidentally knock over. Its still on the base.

LAME

It's not lame at all.

If my IG opponent thinks that his skimmer should contest ground level objectives when his hull is 5" in the air, or that he should be able to embark/disembark troops that are 4" lower than his hull, because Valk's can "land", thus picking the height he wants his skimmer to be at, then...

I would say, fine...then my Waveserpent can claim objectives that are 6"up in ruins and may disembark troops into the top level of that ruin. After all, it is a skimmer, just like the Valk, so obviously I too should be able pick the height I want at which I want it to be located. Or, would you like it better if I too put my skimmer on a ball joint so that I can simply angle it up to reach the higher levels of ruins and buildings?

Face it, whether you like it or not, all models have advantages and disadvantages. Boo-hoo, the Valk is too far off the ground to capture ground level objectives...so what? It can capture objectives that are placed higher than other any other vehicle can reach, and it is almost completely out of meltagun range, just by being on its base.

You gotta take the good with the bad, without complaining about it. Anything else is showing poor sportsmanship.

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?

Not a good logical construction. According to the RAW, the skimmer couldn't take that objective either. It would hover above it, just like it hovers above the ground.

Example #1: Ground level objective: Rhino can contest it, other skimmers can contest it, Valk can't.

Example #2: Building level objective 'x' inches off the ground: Rhino can't contest it, and neither can the Valk.

Same-same.

What I get out of this is that GW miniature designers made a sturdier, more stable flying base that might have some application for flyers in Apoc from an aesthetic point of view and some players are using it to punish IG players for daring to use it. I hate to sound like the dreaded "fluff-Nazi", but could somebody give me a good description/explanation for why a Wave Serpent can contest an objective, but a Valkyrie can't. Paint the picture for me.

And please, For the Love of All Mankind, do not say "Cause the Rulebook says it doesn't".

P.S. For the record: I do not own, use or model any Valkyries or Vultures. I got no agenda, folks.

How about disembarking on top of the vehicle and waiting for it to go down?

Corum wrote:

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?

BLAH BLAH BLAH WAFFLE

You DO realise you measure to and from the hull, and that there is a 3" bubble to contest?

Gwar! wrote:

Corum wrote:

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?

BLAH BLAH BLAH WAFFLE

You DO realise you measure to and from the hull, and that there is a 3" bubble to contest?

Wow. Nice Quote. Way to be an adult.

We all know that 90% of tournament objectives are on the ground level. Denying the Valkyrie the ability to contest objectives (or even disembarking it's transported troops (?)) because it happens to be the first skimmer to be produced with that base is lame, opportunistic and a perversion of the spirit of the game. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Am I ing Waffling now?

Why is it a perversion of the "spirit of the game" to have limitations based on the size and placement of the vehicle?

In many ways, the shape of a model determines what it can do in the game. This is common among *all* models. For the Valkyrie to be the one model that ignores the limitations based on the location of its hull... that would be a perversion of the rules.

I had some guys tell me that placing objectives in hard-to-reach places is against the "spirit of the game." IMO "spirit of the game" is what people say when they don't have any actual rules to stand on, but feel passionate about their argument.

If I were a guard player with valkyries, I would simply make sure to place the objectives that I have control over in places that are advantageous to me: the tops of hills, ruins, etc.

It's called strategy.

Corum wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Corum wrote:

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?

BLAH BLAH BLAH WAFFLE

You DO realise you measure to and from the hull, and that there is a 3" bubble to contest?

Yet more Waffle

All you are saying is "Whaa Whaa I want all the Advantages and none of the Disadvantages. Also, the "spirit of the game?" ROFL. If you want that play casually, not competitively.

Also, I am ashamed of myself. All the Time.
I also Like Pancakes.

Gwar! wrote:

Corum wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Corum wrote:

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:I think for someone to even suggest that a valk cannot capture because its too far off of the ground is pretty lame.

Try turning it around. Instead of the Valkyrie and an objective on the ground, what if it's a Rhino and an objective on top of a 3 story building?

BLAH BLAH BLAH WAFFLE

You DO realise you measure to and from the hull, and that there is a 3" bubble to contest?

Yet more Waffle

All you are saying is "Whaa Whaa I want all the Advantages and none of the Disadvantages. Also, the "spirit of the game?" ROFL. If you want that play casually, not competitively.

Also, I am ashamed of myself. All the Time.
I also Like Pancakes.

Typical Troll is Typical.

Do you have an answer for my question: why should the valkyrie not have model-based limitations and bonuses when all other models in the game do?

willydstyle wrote:Do you have an answer for my question: why should the valkyrie not have model-based limitations and bonuses when all other models in the game do?

He doesn't. He prefers to hide behind Ad Hominem Attacks against me and citing the "Spirit of the Rules" rather than answer the question.

Disclaimer for the Mods: No, I am not trying to be rude, I am making an observation based on Past comments such as "Typical Troll is Typical" and the avoidance of answering the actual question.

Personally I think it's a shame that the rules are sop ambigious. I would just take the whole thing in the spirit of things, so making the Valkyrie a Troop carrier with the ability to drop down. However, if you play it by the rules, what about a LSS?

MC

extermikator wrote:Personally I think it's a shame that the rules are sop ambigious. I would just take the whole thing in the spirit of things, so making the Valkyrie a Troop carrier with the ability to drop down. However, if you play it by the rules, what about a LSS?

MC

LSSs aren't on 5" tall bases.