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.

So, in a couple of other threads a heated debate was sparked when I suggested that players follow the rules of the game when using their Valkyrie models.

To go over the salient points, and pages of rules:

Page 3 of the rulebook says that a model must be played on the base it comes with, unless you have specific opponent permission to do otherwise.

Page 71 of the rulebook tells us that for purposes of measurements, you disregard the base, and measure to/from the hull. It also tells us that the only time you remove the base from a skimmer is when it is immobilized or wrecked.

So, given these rules, you'll find that a valkyrie cannot come within 3" of most ground-level objectives in order to contest them and/or score with troops inside. You will also find that you can't disembark or embark from a valkyrie because you cannot place troops within 2" of its access points.

Many people seem to think that this makes the Valkyrie unplayable if you actually follow the rules. I'm of the opinion that all other vehicles suffer from certain disadvantages due to height and placement of access points (ever try to set up a charge out of a waveserpent?) and that valkyries should be no different, but with some caveats.

For example, a rhino full of troops could not capture an objective placed at the top of a 6" ruins, so why should troops in the valkyrie be able to capture an objective on ground level?

As far as embarking/disembarking goes... well yes, troops can do a grav-chute insertion, but the idea that you have a transport vehicle that can rarely ever pick up troops does seem ridiculout to me.

So, how are you going to play your valkyries?

The only thing I would allow is embarking and Disembarking, measuring from the access points on a Horizontal plane (Especially since the rules actually work like that, see the diagrams for disembarking and for buildings too)o

And your point about the rhino is spot on, it can't capture 6" up, so a Valk Cannot Capture 6" down

I think its pretty silly that the embarking problems didn't occur in test games for GW....... I voted the second option

edit: I have since changed my mind based on some things that have been pointed out in this thread. I don't think the model interacts properly with the rules almost at all as intended so I'd always try to work something out before the game with my opponent, with the intent be to make it a playable model to the intent in the IG codex.

It probably never came up because they probably didn't follow the rules in their test games. I mean, they don't play by the rules in WD, so why would their 'play tests' be any different?

Does this mean that units can disembark and start floating?

In most cases, I'd prolly let the person treat it as any other vehicle. Other factors could play into how I'd play it, though. If the IG player is an ass, abuses rules (off the top of my head, meshing squads for cover saves for both is the only I can think of), etc, my take on the issue may suffer a momentary change of heart.

it is a gunboat skimmer, it is the same as a Wave Serpent.

Tacobake wrote:it is a gunboat skimmer, it is the same as a Wave Serpent.

I'd classify it closer to the Falcon, but that's unimportant. While both are flying transports with decent/excellent offensive capabilities, the difference is in the bases. The Wave Serpent doesn't come with a ten inch tall base. That in turn raises major questions in how to measure to the thing. Do we follow the strictest RaW argument? Or do we allow some slack for this oversight?

Include a few pieces of terrain that are a few inches tall. They can disembark onto higher terrain, or they can use the grav chute insertion. No reason to modify rules when it can easily be made playable using the existing ones.

That's if your opponent is someone who has ever pulled the "you absolutely must use RAW even though it is clearly broken" stuff. For anyone else that you would enjoy a friendly game with, I don't mind them embarking/disembarking from the base.

Tacobake wrote:it is a gunboat skimmer, it is the same as a Wave Serpent.

A rhino is a tank transport with guns on it. It is the same as a land raider.

See, that argument doesn't really work, because for better or worse, vehicles are defined by their models.

Both a land raider and a rhino have 3 access points. As far as the written rules are concerned these access points can be anywhere on the vehicle. But since the vehicles are pretty clearly defined by the models, the rhino has two side doors, and one in the rear. A land raider has one in front and two on the sides.

Because of this, the dimensions of a vehicle's model have a direct impact on the rules. Trying to claim that a valkyrie and a wave serpent should play exactly the same doesn't really work well.

>.> Now I want to model a Rhino with a front hatch.

Um, doesn't the codex define the hatch?

So I read the whole thing, I get the problem is the 10" base issue. Note that as a bonus the thing does not block LoS to your own units, unlike Wave Serpents. Call it a blessing. It is also a great model with fluffy uber-cheese. One handicap does not a broken unit make.

That and think how cool it will be when Valks fly in and drop off units of veterans on top of a building.

As an appendum, Valks and Wave Serpents should play the same because they both are the same, just like Rhinos and Land Raiders are the same. Other than their differing codex rules, of course.

And yes, all you need to know is the RaW. That is why it is called the RULES as WRITTEN. It is in the name.

Fortunately, all my objectives are 12" tall.

Considering that the Valkyrie is a flier maybe it shouldn't be allowed to do normal disembarks, just grav chute insertions. Fluff wise fliers have min speeds right?

Wouldn't a flying transport either a) land completely to disembark or b) do a grav chute insertion?

It seems only skimmers should be able to disembark safely at slower speeds from a fluff viewpoint.

Anyway I say this purely from a fluff perspective with no regard to gameplay balance. It really is amazing GW didn't discover all this during playtesting. Since the Valkyrie was originally a flier they should of put some more effort into its rules. Like the ability to land and take off for example.

With regards to its other issues, some of them are advantages and others disadvantages. For example having to measure everything to it on an angle decreases range a bit (can hurt melta weapons looking for that half range). Also it can only be assaulted by its base which is smaller than its hull. Maybe these advantages offset some of the disadvantages.

It has to come on the base, but it doesn't have to be on the stand/ the stand can be shorter.

I'm taking willydstyle's arguement to my local GW this week.
One of the workers there is a real RAWophile and is in the process of doing an air cav company.

I'll be bracing for Epic Win.

willydstyle wrote:So, in a couple of other threads a heated debate was sparked when I suggested that players follow the rules of the game when using their Valkyrie models.

To go over the salient points, and pages of rules:
......


As far as embarking/disembarking goes... well yes, troops can do a grav-chute insertion, but the idea that you have a transport vehicle that can rarely ever pick up troops does seem ridiculout to me.

So, how are you going to play your valkyries?

Troops can extract the same way we actually do now when the situation does not lend itself to putting the craft on the ground.

STABO http://www.vietnamgear.com/kit.aspx?kit=661 has been around since Viet Nam and is widely used by some forces.

Picture of the CISO version http://www.modernforces.com/img/new_site/stabo_contents_450.jpg

Picture of the Natrick Labs version http://s444.photobucket.com/albums/qq161/bonnettm/?action=view¤t=b.jpg Still have that one in my attic somewhere ...

Flying without a chute....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK9kGMc3jGw&feature=related

Since we been doing this since Vietnam I am sure the Emperor and his Stormies can do it....

For that matter...the Fulton system is not as widely used but by 40k times. For those not familiar with this system think the movie "The Green Berets" or watch this video .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PErEsNhDmo8&feature=PlayList&p=9C0741286C81F8F3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10

It also depends on what you use for an objective. I have generic objective markers from GF9 that are pretty much coin sized. When I asked people to model and paint their own objective markers for a tournament a month or so back, I'd say 90% of the stuff people made were more than 2" tall.

Are people really still arguing about this? I mean come on. Anyone who is arguing about this is just blatant rules lawyering from people bitching about how guard have changed the metagame. Just measure from the base for all intent and purposes. Because if it isn't what you are saying is that there is no point to having troops in the valk because by the RAW models can only disembark and embark within 2" of the hatch which means that its impossible for troops to disembark or embark onto the valk from the ground. I am also almost positive 90% (my estimate is conservative) of players who play 40k play this way and only the top 10% which play competitively are actually arguing about this. Furthermore if people are really bothered by it, do 1 of two things. 1) make your own custom base. (I'm sorry willy but if you argue about a custom valk base people will start bitching about bike terminator and scenic bases which detracts from the entire fun/hobby aspect of the game. Which I'm 100% sure won't fly. If they are allowed in tournaments then the custom valks are as well)
Or 2) Make the base detachable. Problem solved. Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

Again sorry about the rant.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:It has to come on the base, but it doesn't have to be on the stand/ the stand can be shorter.

Where is this stated in the rules? I was under the impression that the stand (ie the vertical part that connects the skimmer to the "base") counted as part of the base, thus the one supplied by GW must be used. I'm not trying to say you're wrong (in fact I'm hoping you're right), I just want to see it stated in the rules. I would be quite happy to shorten the stands for my Valks so they are able to hold/contest objectives and avoid issues with things like deployment and footprint/models underneath and other awkward circumstances.

Caffran9 wrote:Where is this stated in the rules? I was under the impression that the stand (ie the vertical part that connects the skimmer to the "base") counted as part of the base, thus the one supplied by GW must be used.

I think the argument is that if you want to play the strict RAW on this issue, you need to create a water-tight RAW argument that the vertical support is part of the "base" that cannot be modified. Since the basing and vehicle rules are too vague to support such an argument, this becomes a RAI issue.

Well, in order for us to be allowed to change/modify the base, we need a rule doing so.

The shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. People need to point at the rulebook and say; "See? Right there on page X it says that I can modify the base the model came with.".

Otherwise we need to glue (when we have to be strict about it) the base that the model came with, to the model.

It is kinda like the conversion issue. I think Yakface said it rather well when he pointed out, that converting our models isn't strictly allowed by the rules. The agrement to allow converting is an unwritten contract between players and issues arise when one player feel the other player has violated the terms of said contract.

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.

Steelmage99 wrote:Well, in order for us to be allowed to change/modify the base, we need a rule doing so. The shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. People need to point at the rulebook and say; "See? Right there on page X it says that I can modify the base the model came with.".

Not really. Being able to change / modify a model is the default rule in 40k. After all, they come assembled. The rule that bases must be unchanged is an exception to that general rule.

Thus, the question is: "What counts as the unchangeable base section?" It's obvious that the bottom base is part of it. It's less obvious that the little piece sticking up is.

willydstyle wrote:place blast markers before measuring range

Actually, he is alowed to measure range first, but only after declaring his shooting. Placing the Blast marker Replaces the "Roll to hit" Step of Shooting, which is Step 3. Measuring the Range to the Target Unit is Step 2. So you actually have to measure the range first, place the Blast marker, then measure again to see if it is out of range or not

Page 15 wrote:THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE
1 Check line of sight & pick a target.
Pick one of your units, check its line of sight and choose a target for it. All models in the unit that can see at least one enemy model in the target unit may open fire.

2 Check range.
At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models.

3 Roll to hit.
Roll a D6 for each shot fired. The model's BS determines what score they must equal or beat to hit their target.

BLAST
Blast weapons fire shells, missiles or bolts of energy that explode on impact.

When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model or its hull if it is a vehicle. You may not place the marker so that the base or hull of any of your own models is even grazed by it.

Next, check if the shot has landed on target. If the hole at the centre of the marker is beyond the weapon's maximum range, the shot is an automatic miss and the marker is removed.

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.

So you can never deploy troops out of the valk, nor can you get any 6" shots from melta's, and you cannot assault it as well? If an enemy model cannot get within 1" of the base because it would be within base contact and counted as in combat, then you are god damn right it contests any objective. Or do you play with only the rules that you seem to like as well?

moosifer wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.

So you can never deploy troops out of the valk, nor can you get any 6" shots from melta's, and you cannot assault it as well? If an enemy model cannot get within 1" of the base because it would be within base contact and counted as in combat, then you are god damn right it contests any objective. Or do you play with only the rules that you seem to like as well?

Well, the rules specify that you can assault either the base or the hull of the flier. We've been over that already. As far as melta weapons being within 6", if it's not within 6", it's not within range for the bonus D6. Seems pretty clear to me.

Actually, it is assaultable, with skimmers, you can charge the base. Note, it does specifically state that you still measure to the hull for everything else.

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.

I can understand your frustration at people not playing by the rules I think everyone has that same frustration especially at 5am after a long game. Your specific argument, however, reinforces my point about how things like this really only effect the top 10% playing competitive tournaments and not the vast majority of players.
What I am most interested in seeing, is if GW actually FAQS the valk for these purposes or if they just keep it the same assuming players know what to do.

dumplingman wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

What ruins fun for me is when my opponent assumes he doesn't have to play by the rules just because he doesn't feel like he should have to. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but the fact that one of my opponent's this last Saturday at a tournament was affronted when I asked him to do run rolls in the shooting phase and place blast markers before measuring range really detracted from my game. This disappointed me as I was looking forward to playing against a Tyranid army as they don't seem to be too common lately.

Most of the time you can get away with breaking the rules simply because many players don't feel they know the rules well enough to question what their opponent is doing. However, I don't think that's really being a good sportsman, or playing in the spirit of the game.

I can understand your frustration at people not playing by the rules I think everyone has that same frustration especially at 5am after a long game. Your specific argument, however, reinforces my point about how things like this really only effect the top 10% playing competitive tournaments and not the vast majority of players.
What I am most interested in seeing, is if GW actually FAQS the valk for these purposes or if they just keep it the same assuming players know what to do.

Your assumption that tournaments and fun shouldn't go together is a facetious one. Also, most of my games (90%) are "casual" games, and honestly it's tournament players that generally don't know the rules as well, either that or their feigning ignorance for advantage.