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.

willydstyle wrote:

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.

Only because the Valkyrie is the newest model with a new style base. The RAI's alleging a difference are conveniently glossing over that.

Frazzled wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

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.

Only because the Valkyrie is the newest model with a new style base. The RAI's alleging a difference are conveniently glossing over that.

There are lots of indicators that help form the opinion that the RAI of the Valkyrie is that it can swoop down at will, as the fluff makes it a VTOL aircraft. Not a single one of us knows for certain what the intent was of the Valkyrie as adapted to non Apocalypse though.

People need to accept the fact that not all players have any interest in guessing what the rules were meant to be, when the rules as written work perfectly well. You have some disadvantages, and some advantages in trade. Just because you don't like it doesn't obligate me to allow a house rule to suit your opinion of RAI. Even if I shared that opinion, the current rules work fine. Adapt and play them.

If you want a custom Valkyrie rule, sure thing. Hang on a sec while I break out my Deathwing army, because I'm using the house rule that I can use 5th edition wargear rules in trade for agreeing to use your Valkyrie house rule. See how this works?

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?

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?

Um...What kinda tournaments do you play at? Under the 5th edition missions you always get to place at least half of the objectives. While I haven't ever been to a GT I would asume they would do the same. Since you get to place at least half you can draw as long as you hold yours. And given what an army of these can do taking thiers will only be hard depending on thier army.

Kaaihn wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

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.

Only because the Valkyrie is the newest model with a new style base. The RAI's alleging a difference are conveniently glossing over that.

There are lots of indicators that help form the opinion that the RAI of the Valkyrie is that it can swoop down at will, as the fluff makes it a VTOL aircraft. Not a single one of us knows for certain what the intent was of the Valkyrie as adapted to non Apocalypse though.

People need to accept the fact that not all players have any interest in guessing what the rules were meant to be, when the rules as written work perfectly well. You have some disadvantages, and some advantages in trade. Just because you don't like it doesn't obligate me to allow a house rule to suit your opinion of RAI. Even if I shared that opinion, the current rules work fine. Adapt and play them.

If you want a custom Valkyrie rule, sure thing. Hang on a sec while I break out my Deathwing army, because I'm using the house rule that I can use 5th edition wargear rules in trade for agreeing to use your Valkyrie house rule. See how this works?

Respectfully you're inferring all of that. I am noting it says Skimmer Fast. It has a new style base, which is the SOLE casue of the difficulty. Fluff etc and rules from Apocalypse are not relevant to my point. GW through in a flyer base because its cool and they already had the base (and maybe because the model is physically too big for the standard skimmer base, its a big mother).

Indeed The RAI crowd could be themselves accused of inferring great things.
As noted, for those who have the FW version with no base provided, what then?

Frazzled wrote:As noted, for those who have the FW version with no base provided, what then?

Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.

GWAR shut up your use of facts and logic in a coherent way just totally are getting in the way of my argument! (goes off and sulks)

(of course couldn't everyone else with Valks just take their's off the base at that point)

Upon looking at the poll results I'm disgusted to see how many people don't want to play by the rules. If you want to embark and disembark from a valk as if you were in a rhino, then I am going to shoot you with my meltaguns like you're in a rhino. The full 2d6 for armor pen.

SwollGmr wrote:Upon looking at the poll results I'm disgusted to see how many people don't want to play by the rules. If you want to embark and disembark from a valk as if you were in a rhino, then I am going to shoot you with my meltaguns like you're in a rhino. The full 2d6 for armor pen.

I don't think the "pro rhino" crowd to use your vernacular have any issue with that, as thats what you could do against every other skimmer in the game.
I think the moral of the story is use the lower height standard base and everyone's on the same page.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As noted, for those who have the FW version with no base provided, what then?

Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.

Actually, the answer is that a proxy, or counts as, is treated in all respects like the model it is intended to be. This means treating your FW Valkyrie with no base as if it was at the same height as the official one.

You were fine to treat it as being on the ground until GW came out with the official one that has an official height it needs to be treated as. Now that the official one is out, you are just proxying and should follow the proxy rules.

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As noted, for those who have the FW version with no base provided, what then?

Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.

Actually, the answer is that a proxy, or counts as, is treated in all respects like the model it is intended to be. This means treating your FW Valkyrie with no base as if it was at the same height as the official one.

You were fine to treat it as being on the ground until GW came out with the official one that has an official height it needs to be treated as. Now that the official one is out, you are just proxying and should follow the proxy rules.

A valkyrie is a proxy for a valkyrie, but not any more, now its just a valkyrie?

Blink.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully you're inferring all of that. I am noting it says Skimmer Fast. It has a new style base, which is the SOLE casue of the difficulty. Fluff etc and rules from Apocalypse are not relevant to my point.

Indeed The RAI crowd could be themselves accused of inferring great things.

None of that was inferred actually, it is based on what people in this thread has specifically stated, and discussions with folks at my local store.

It does indeed say Skimmer Fast. It gets treated as a Skimmer Fast. Please show where there is a rule that governs the height of the skimmer? The problem is, there is no rule that says that skimmers all exist within the rules at x height. You are told to measure from each skimmers hull, and to use the base it came with. That makes skimmers have a varying height. Yes, it has a new height base, which causes this skimmer to interact with the game differently than other skimmers. We have clear rules how to handle every one of those interactions though.

Frazzled wrote:GW through in a flyer base because its cool and they already had the base (and maybe because the model is physically too big for the standard skimmer base, its a big mother).

Please show the rule that GW put the Valkyrie on a taller base for the reasons you state. See, it doesn't exist. You are making it up based on indicators from fluff, marketing material, opinions, etc. None of which change a clearly working set of rules. The opinion on the RAI would only matter if something was clearly broken in the rules.

For instance, it mentions you can still disembark normally. You can, you disembark normally onto a terrain piece that would place your models no more than 2" away. This is the same concept as for every other vehicle. You can't disembark over the side of a cliff, for example.

If the stand was high enough that the model was greater than 2" away from the highest legal piece of terrain while still mentioning disembarking normally, then you have a broken rule and would need to house rule it, which of course would be based on RAI. As there is nothing actually broken about the current rules, there is no requirement to house rule any changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As noted, for those who have the FW version with no base provided, what then?

Simple, they don't use a base and cannot get the advantages of the new Valk, nor do they suffer the disadvantages.

Actually, the answer is that a proxy, or counts as, is treated in all respects like the model it is intended to be. This means treating your FW Valkyrie with no base as if it was at the same height as the official one.

You were fine to treat it as being on the ground until GW came out with the official one that has an official height it needs to be treated as. Now that the official one is out, you are just proxying and should follow the proxy rules.

A valkyrie is a proxy for a valkyrie, but not any more, now its just a valkyrie?

Blink.

As silly as it sounds, yep! Remember that Valkyrie wasn't even legal to be in the game prior to the new codex to begin with, it was allowed in under a house rule. FW models and rules are not legal in standard games, except to use the model as a proxy to something in the codex.

Right, so say I wish my Valks weren't so high in the air so I could deploy from them... what exactly constitutes the base of the model. Obviously big black plastic pancake base is part of the base, but does the stand count as that as well? The stand is literally ignored for game play (ie drawing LOS) and only relevent to how high in the air the model stands. Thus, could I simply mount my Valks on smaller/lower stands as long as that stand and the model sit atop the black base that it comes with?

FWIW I think troops should deploy normally from a Valk, but I also think that you should be able to smash them with 2d6 ap rolls from your half range melta weapons and such.

Caffran9 wrote:Right, so say I wish my Valks weren't so high in the air so I could deploy from them... what exactly constitutes the base of the model. Obviously big black plastic pancake base is part of the base, but does the stand count as that as well? The stand is literally ignored for game play (ie drawing LOS) and only relevent to how high in the air the model stands. Thus, could I simply mount my Valks on smaller/lower stands as long as that stand and the model sit atop the black base that it comes with?

FWIW I think troops should deploy normally from a Valk, but I also think that you should be able to smash them with 2d6 ap rolls from your half range melta weapons and such.

The argument will now be that you can't change the base it came with.

Thus, could I simply mount my Valks on smaller/lower stands as long as that stand and the model sit atop the black base that it comes with?

Yes, you can. People change their models around to gain advantages all of the time (kneeling Wraithlords, Defilers with loincloths to block LOS, mounting Bloodcrushers on tiny bases, etc). The rules are that you must use the base supplied with the model, not the flying stand (and the rules do indeed differentiate between the two).

I hate that they gave it such a defined base. So that whole gigantic big thing is supposed to only be something smaller than a rhino? I'd like to measure to the hull, but my friends claim the wings aren't part of the hull of the vehicle - which is really pretty lame as there's weapons mounted on the things.

I'll treat it like a falcon in my games. Low enough to the ground to do everything a falcon can and low enough to be blasted out of the sky by meltas. If my opponent decides they want to call it really tall to avoid my guns, they'll have to accept the other consequences with it of not being able to disembark and not being able to contest ground-level objectives.

thanks, I don't have the literature with me actually look through it and find the answer myself at the moment, so I figured I'd ask

Spellbound wrote:I hate that they gave it such a defined base. So that whole gigantic big thing is supposed to only be something smaller than a rhino? I'd like to measure to the hull, but my friends claim the wings aren't part of the hull of the vehicle - which is really pretty lame as there's weapons mounted on the things.

I'll treat it like a falcon in my games. Low enough to the ground to do everything a falcon can and low enough to be blasted out of the sky by meltas. If my opponent decides they want to call it really tall to avoid my guns, they'll have to accept the other consequences with it of not being able to disembark and not being able to contest ground-level objectives.

Why aren't the wings hull? Page 56 of the rulebook defines what isn't hull. It says, "measure to or from their hull (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

Are Wings....
Gun barrels? No.
Dozer Blades? No.
Antennas? No.
Banners or other decorativ elements? No.

Well if it not stuff that isn't hull, then it must be hull.

How does this jive with the skimmers over difficult terrain rules?
I might be wrong (I don't have skimmers so never use the rules) but they are not counted as floating over terrain any longer, so if they end their turn in/over a crater, they need to take the dangerous test. Does this not imply that the actual location of the vehicle's hull is defined by something other than the peice of plastic that is some number of inches off the table?

I am not saying I know the answer, or even that this matters, but it seems like a weird double standard.

Wehrkind wrote:

I am not saying I know the answer, or even that this matters, but it seems like a weird double standard.

Welcome to 40k

The rules are on page 71. If you start or end in difficult, you take a dangerous. What this implies is that the pilot has done something, perhaps fly to low, and scrapped a tree.

arinnoor wrote:

Why aren't the wings hull? Page 56 of the rulebook defines what isn't hull. It says, "measure to or from their hull (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

Are Wings....
Gun barrels? No.
Dozer Blades? No.
Antennas? No.
Banners or other decorativ elements? No.

Well if it not stuff that isn't hull, then it must be hull.

Classic example of a deductive fallacy.

What is false about it? Can you show me rules to the contrary?

Yes, but what I mean to say is that if we are to assume that the hull of the thing doesn't matter in terms of movement (the pilot is moving up and down, instead of keeping the bugger 5" off the table at all times) isn't it reasonable to think that we are to assume that the thing can get low to the ground to disembark troops?

I don't know, I just wish that GW would hire some actual rules geeks instead of just fluff bunnies.

arinnoor wrote:What is false about it? Can you show me rules to the contrary?

You have deduced that just because wings are not included in the examples of what is not hull, that they are therefore hull. It is analogous to the following:

Premise 1: All ravens are black.
Premise 2: Birds A and B are black, but they are not ravens.
Premise 3: Bird C is black.

Illogical conclusion: Bird C is a raven.

Yes that doesn't always work, but there are no other gudelines (AFAIK) to determine hull. If there are I will gladly go by those.

What I mean to say is can anyone prove with rules that wings aren't hull? It isn't one of the things decribed as clearly not hull.

arinnoor wrote:Yes that doesn't always work, but there are no other gudelines (AFAIK) to determine hull. If there are I will gladly go by those.

What I mean to say is can anyone prove with rules that wings aren't hull? It isn't one of the things decribed as clearly not hull.

It is definitely a gray area. That particular line of reasoning, however, isn't sound.

Hull is defined as the main body or frame of a ship/aircraft/whatever. I personally wouldn't call the wings part of the main body, but it's a matter of interpretation.

It doesn't say that on page 56 where it talks about measuring distances, hich is where I found hull. Is there another page I should be looking on?

arinnoor wrote:It doesn't say that on page 56 where it talks about measuring distances, hich is where I found hull. Is there another page I should be looking on?

I was referring to the dictionary definition of what a hull is, which is what should be deferred to in the absence of a clearly defined game term.

Danny Internets wrote:

arinnoor wrote:Yes that doesn't always work, but there are no other gudelines (AFAIK) to determine hull. If there are I will gladly go by those.

What I mean to say is can anyone prove with rules that wings aren't hull? It isn't one of the things decribed as clearly not hull.

It is definitely a gray area. That particular line of reasoning, however, isn't sound.

Hull is defined as the main body or frame of a ship/aircraft/whatever. I personally wouldn't call the wings part of the main body, but it's a matter of interpretation.

You are making the assumption Hull means Hull. This Is GW, they could have meant hull to include wings and such. The problem is a model of the scale of the Valk has never been made before, so the 5th ed rules were not written with it in mind.

arinnoor wrote:It doesn't say that on page 56 where it talks about measuring distances, hich is where I found hull. Is there another page I should be looking on?

If wings are not hull, then you could conceivably stick the bulk of the model behind something solid (and very tall) to block LoS, but have the wings stick out from the sides of it and thus be allowed to shoot the wing mounted weapons (since LoS and distance are measured from the weapon of the vehicle) while at the same time, not being able to be shot at.