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 read the latest release of the new INAT FAQ and the clarification still has me scratching my head. Suppose you mount an Inquisitor with the mystics inside an IG gunship. Can they measure from the wings when spotting distance towards an enemy deep striking unit? Note that to be able to do so greatly extends their range.

G

RaW i don't know how this would work. But in the spirit of friendly gaming I would say fuselage only as the models can clearly not be inside the wings.

Is option 3 supposed to be "Measure from any point on the hull as defined in IG.56A.01," since strictly speaking that isn't the same as "any point along the skimmer"?

Most powers I am familiar with measure from the hull. Dozers don't count as hull, but wargear. However, the wings are not wargear, they are part of the hull. This means you can get shot in the wing, where a tank can't get shot in the dozer (but you can shoot through the dozer to hit the hull behind it... just to be clear). I would say to keep it consistant with all the other vehicles in the game (that I can think of) you would be able to measure from the wings, or anywhere you can get shot at.

I have no read the INAT ruling however.

Even if you could measure from the wings, wouldn't the height of the flying stand make this technique useless?

GBF,

The reason you might be confused a bit is because, as usual, we didn't recover the same clarifications GW makes in their FAQ. So you're expected to read and understand GW's FAQ rulings before looking at the INAT ones.

In other words, the INAT doesn't cover this particular issue because it is covered in GW's FAQ.

And GW's FAQ decided to rule that you use the standard rules for measuring from the Valk/Vendetta except when embarking/disembarking and contesting objectives.

So your answer here is 'C' (the third one), although it isn't quite anywhere on the model, as IG.56A.01 defines what counts as the 'hull' in this case (which is almost all of the model).


We considered ruling that the wings don't count as part of the hull, but ultimately that could lead to nasty situations where the weapons mounted on the wing could be firing at enemies while the Valkyrie could not be fired at as only its wing (non-hull) would be visible.


I'll tell you though: Our original ruling that we were ready to release right before GW suddenly dropped the IG FAQ on us forcing us to change everything at the last second, IMHO, was much better than what they came up with.

We basically had it that any ranges measured to and from the Valk/Vendetta that did not involve line of sight, blast markers or templates, was measured to and from the model's base (and anything that did use line of sight, blast markers or templates would be resolved to the vehicle's hull as usual, which includes the wings).

IMO, this covered 99% of the tricky situations very fairly and in this particular case would have meant that the Mystic's range was measured from the Valk's base instead of its hull.

yakface wrote:I'll tell you though: Our original ruling that we were ready to release right before GW suddenly dropped the IG FAQ on us forcing us to change everything at the last second, IMHO, was much better than what they came up with.

This is one of the reasons why I feel the INAT FAQ should ignore the GW FAQ alltogether and just reproduce the 2% of good Answers from them and fix the 98% of crap answers.

But that's just me

Yak thanks for the explanation behind the ruling in your FAQ. Maybe this is one to reconsider.

G

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:I'll tell you though: Our original ruling that we were ready to release right before GW suddenly dropped the IG FAQ on us forcing us to change everything at the last second, IMHO, was much better than what they came up with.

This is one of the reasons why I feel the INAT FAQ should ignore the GW FAQ alltogether and just reproduce the 2% of good Answers from them and fix the 98% of crap answers.

But that's just me

I probably wouldn't be too opposed to have one FAQ, from one group, that was just so good and reasonable... and clear and consice... that no one would even bother to ask GW to write rules anymore. You guys should just make 6th ed rules before GW has a chance... and see if you can get everyone on board. Then call up Forge World and get them to start making the models... and off we go! Lol.

Lt Lathrop wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:I'll tell you though: Our original ruling that we were ready to release right before GW suddenly dropped the IG FAQ on us forcing us to change everything at the last second, IMHO, was much better than what they came up with.

This is one of the reasons why I feel the INAT FAQ should ignore the GW FAQ alltogether and just reproduce the 2% of good Answers from them and fix the 98% of crap answers.

But that's just me

I probably wouldn't be too opposed to have one FAQ, from one group, that was just so good and reasonable... and clear and consice... that no one would even bother to ask GW to write rules anymore. You guys should just make 6th ed rules before GW has a chance... and see if you can get everyone on board. Then call up Forge World and get them to start making the models... and off we go! Lol.

That's not a half bad Idea. Only problem would be the arbitrary name changes required to stop GW Suing the pants off us

Battleanvil 40 Thousand. Get the new Dark Grasp starter pack with Space Dudes and Fugusmen.

Lt Lathrop wrote:Battleanvil 40 Thousand. Get the new Dark Grasp starter pack with Space Dudes and Fugusmen.

This project sounds hilarious and I fully support its inception.

Lt Lathrop wrote:Battleanvil 40 Thousand. Get the new Dark Grasp starter pack with Space Dudes and Fugusmen.

Someone already made one.

http://jenniverse.com/toymallet%20main.html

I am actually seriously considering writing up a Free Living Rulebook format "6th edition".

Do I need to up my meds?

Gwar!, please don't up those meds. And please do write a 6th edition.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yak thanks for the explanation behind the ruling in your FAQ. Maybe this is one to reconsider.

G

What would we be reconsidering it to, if you don't mind me asking. The Valkyrie/Vendetta rules are such a big minefield of rules issues, that when people are voting on one poll here they may not be realizing what implications playing that way would mean if applied consistently.

While most people here seem to be voting that you measure range from the fuselage of the vehicle, I'm guessing that if we posted a poll about a Valk/Vendetta hiding behind terrain with only its wing-mounted weapon sticking out to shoot at enemies everyone would then vote that 'yes' the wings now count as part of the hull.

But you really can't have it both ways. Either the wings are always part of the hull or they aren't and both rulings have some strange implications either way.

And unfortunately for us, GW made a ruling in their FAQ which is pretty clear: The only time measurements are made from the base in the case of Valks/Vendettas is when embarking/disembarking and contesting objectives.

Gwar! wrote:I am actually seriously considering writing up a Free Living Rulebook format "6th edition".

Do I need to up my meds?

It would be a metric crap-ton of work, and honestly, the codexes are the real issue, waaay more than the rulebook. But I'm sure some people be interested in using it, so really it is whether or not it is something you are interested in tackling rather than whether or not anyone would actually use it (because it would ultimately be pretty limited in its usage to small groups of gamers who like using extensive house rules).

yakface wrote:
I'll tell you though: Our original ruling that we were ready to release right before GW suddenly dropped the IG FAQ on us forcing us to change everything at the last second, IMHO, was much better than what they came up with.

We basically had it that any ranges measured to and from the Valk/Vendetta that did not involve line of sight, blast markers or templates, was measured to and from the model's base (and anything that did use line of sight, blast markers or templates would be resolved to the vehicle's hull as usual, which includes the wings).

IMO, this covered 99% of the tricky situations very fairly and in this particular case would have meant that the Mystic's range was measured from the Valk's base instead of its hull.

- edit -

G

orkcommander wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:Battleanvil 40 Thousand. Get the new Dark Grasp starter pack with Space Dudes and Fugusmen.

Someone already made one.

http://jenniverse.com/toymallet%20main.html

Eeeee! In love. Just need point costs for skills or "each unit has one special rule" ad we're good to go

I would say "Yes, you can measure from the wings" but also point out that this does not offer that much of an advantage, as you have to measure from the wings in their position above the table.

I'd go from the base. While not necessarily reflective of GW's position, it provides a easily implemented standard for how to rule it. I find that measuring from the model itself leads to argument about whether its height counts as part of the distance or whether you measure from a top down perspective.

GBF,

The only problem with going back to our original ruling idea would be that we are now essentially ruling against what GW has ruled in their FAQs, which is something we try really, really hard not to do for the most part.

And as had been pointed out, you are measuring from the actual Valk/Vendetta model to the base of the deep striking models, so you are effectively 'losing' a bit of distance measuring that way.

yak there is nothing wrong with contradicting a GW FAQ if you really believe your way is better and solves 99+% of the problems. The IG gunships are just a big mess as it stands now.

G

yakface wrote:GBF,
We considered ruling that the wings don't count as part of the hull, but ultimately that could lead to nasty situations where the weapons mounted on the wing could be firing at enemies while the Valkyrie could not be fired at as only its wing (non-hull) would be visible.

This is something I wanted to ask about. The GW FAQ sort of implied that the wings did not count as hull with the bit about "access points being on either side of the hull". To me, this means that the hull could not extend past the access points. For balance reasons, I understand that you don't want to let the wings fire and the hull itself remain concealed, but I think that you have that potential with any vehicle, most famously being the Exorcist. I could see it being possible to hide a Rhino behind cover and just barely be able to shoot over it and not have fire returned. If anything, I think that you should just have to have line of sight to ANY part of the vehicle, be it weapon or hull, and then how much of the hull being visible determines if you get a cover save or not.

Just my two cents.

yakface wrote:The only problem with going back to our original ruling idea would be that we are now essentially ruling against what GW has ruled in their FAQs, which is something we try really, really hard not to do for the most part.

As much as I respect this, I feel it is a lost cause, since 99% of GWs FAQ answers make zero sense and blatantly contradict RaW 90% of the time (and yes I pulled the statistics out my arse but they are not far off and you damn well know it! ).

I would really like to see the INAT FAQ take a life of its own, having a tournament pack using only the actual Errata from GW and the INAT FAQ. Hell, just reproduce word for word the Errata and cut GW PDFs out of it entriely (they are freely available and it does fall under Fair Use I am guessing). Considering even GW run events use it now, the excuse of "not everyone has it/knows about it" doesn't fly any more.

I mean, if you are going to a Tournament, you have to find out how things are being done, no two are the same, so Tournament players lose nothing (as they are doing this checking already) but gain loads (as they have a decent FAQ), while casual players who use the GW FAQs with their Friends in a Basement in the Rural Hamlet of Ruralville also Lose nothing (as they are not playing in a setting with hundreds of people that need a standardised ruleset).

Armandloft wrote:I'd go from the base. While not necessarily reflective of GW's position, it provides a easily implemented standard for how to rule it. I find that measuring from the model itself leads to argument about whether its height counts as part of the distance or whether you measure from a top down perspective.

The problem with this idea is that the game is not played from an only-top-down perspective. It never has really, though many players started playing it as such during 4th ed, largely because they were playing LoS rules incorrectly.

When measuring from a ground-level base to an elevated position, the actual distance measured is the shortest line between those two points: a line that is diagonal to the plane of the battlefield.

Both the Big Waaagh and the Necro used the INAT FAQ this year.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Both the Big Waaagh and the Necro used the INAT FAQ this year.

G

So did Ardboyz. Yup, that's right, GW has admitted their FAQs suck so much, they have to use 2 Different Sets of FAQs to patch them up.

Fun with triangles:

IIRC the flight stand is ~7" tall. The Valk, depending on where you measure from, will probably be slightly higher than 7". For argument's sake, let's just say 7".

On average, an Inq+Mystics will roll 14" for their spot distance.

If they had no footprint (let's ignore the small round base for now) that would give them an effective spot distance of 14". If they were elevated to the height of a Valkyrie, however, their spot distance (c^2-b^2=a^2) would be about 12", because of the distance lost in measuring down.

So if they have no footprint, then yes, they do lose about 2" due to being 7" tall.

Now obviously, the Valkyrie *does* have a footprint, and it is massive. Roughly 3.5" laterally and, depending on where you measure from, another 3.5-5.5" from nose/tail. This would be a minimum of 3.5" advantage versus the no-footprint Inq+Mystics, turning the average spot distance into 15.5" versus 14" sitting.

This is, of course, a fuzzy number. Inq+Mystics *DO* have a footprint that could extend out to 7" in a single direction (which would actually beat the Valkyrie, in that one direction), or are often deployed in a transport of some sort that again would add probably an inch to their spot range on average.

Bottom line? The Valkyrie does give an advantage of about 1" added to the spot distance, but probably no more than any other transport that Inq+Mystics could be deployed into.

Although it is truly massive, the IG player only gains true "advantage" if he puts it ass-backwards, to maximize the reach of its longest dimension; a position that makes it more or less useless offensively, and vulnerable to a lot of shooting. failing that, the reach would be pretty similar to a Chimera on the table.

That was a very good analysis in trigonometry, especially for a butcher. : )

G