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.

Danny Internets wrote: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.

Newsflash: That happens already. Exorcist FTW

Just noticed something, the rules DO MENTION flying bases for skimmers and say you cannot remove them (except to show immobilized or destroyed) because skimmers cannot land under combat conditions.

So it seems that there is not normal disembarking for valks, unless you shorten the base to 2".

Sucks but there it is.

Honestly, most players will understand that the 2" ignores the height of the stand.

Some issues that came up today in the first lucky 13's apoc game (where the local guard player was fielding the storm trooper strike force formation) was the fact that the strike force rules state that models must be deployed within 6" of the command craft, but the wings make that nearly impossible if you are measuring from the hull of the model itself. Also, if you measure to the base for shooting at the model, then that gives a huge advantage to the guard player. If this is the case, can I apply the same rules to Tau skimmers? It would be quite an advantage to get another few inches for the purposes of being assaulted. Furthermore, shooting blast weaponry at Valkyries and having it scatter onto the wings, and then having it not count as hitting, because the template is not over the hull is very discouraging. The player is using the argument of the wings not counting as hull, and I countered with the engine pods on tau skimmers being counted as hull, as well as the drones in their slots, since both can be fairly easily removed.
So Dakkaites, what do you think?

Its the same as Drop pods. If you count the Wings as hull, they count for EVERYTHING. If they are decorative, ignore them completely.

No Halfway measures.

I have been listening, reading, and musing about Valkyries lately, as these issues do seem to be important ones. The general consensus of the rules FAQers is that the hull/main body of the Valk is where things will count and the base will be the point of insertion for disembarking models (it might not land, but it can sure as heck get close to the ground). Personally, I find that all reasonable and although I am a Guard player (and proud owner of three of the buggers), I would agree that that is a fair ruling if I weren't a Guard player.

Another thought came to me while I was out-When has GW ever made a model, save the drop pod, which hasn't been FAQ'ed yes or no, where the entire model doesn't count for the purposes of measuring shooting and movement? Why would the wings be a cosmetic feature? I restate my earlier example about tau Devilfish engine pods being easily removable-Are they also a cosmetic feature?

I would reply to you that the pods are much smaller features of the whole vehicle and do not so drastically effect the size of the model as the wings do on the Valkyrie.

I am actually the guard player lokiami is referring to. My argument was that the wings do not count as part of the hull for the same exact reason as skinnattittar stated. I wish games workshop had made this all clear when the model came out but whats new.

Skinnattittar wrote:I would reply to you that the pods are much smaller features of the whole vehicle and do not so drastically effect the size of the model as the wings do on the Valkyrie.

Just no. Pods' wings are absolutely monstrous. They roughly quadruple the size of the model's footprint. If pod wings don't count, then how can Valk wings?

sourclams wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I would reply to you that the pods are much smaller features of the whole vehicle and do not so drastically effect the size of the model as the wings do on the Valkyrie.

Just no. Pods' wings are absolutely monstrous. They roughly quadruple the size of the model's footprint. If pod wings don't count, then how can Valk wings?

Did you read the whole thread, we are talking about the engines on Tau vehicles, not the doors on drop pods.

No.

So, having read the whole thread, it's still all or nothing. Either the hull encompasses all of the model or it doesn't. You can't cherrypick.

It sure would make thing a lot easier if the wings don't count as part of the hull... Of course as mentioned you must deal with weapons fired that are mounted on the wings. For disembarking I think it should be done in proximity to the base.

G

Except that disembarking is CLEARLY done from an access point.

Having not seen the new Valkyrie or the new Guard Codex, this is entirely RAW:

Each vehicle capable of carrying passengers will have a number of access points defined in its entry. These are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle.

The model's base is not considered an access point.

Thank god my gaming group is actually sane when it comes to dealing with these problems.

Current ruling at my local gaming shop: Assault the base, any unit can move under the valk (but not the base), but weapon hits are direct LoS. Access points do not take height into effect (They rappel down, as the fluff dictates.)

I just want to say, it is pretty stupid to not consider the wings part of the hull. I mean, think about it. If your missile blows off the wing, its gonna crash all the same

sourclams wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I would reply to you that the pods are much smaller features of the whole vehicle and do not so drastically effect the size of the model as the wings do on the Valkyrie.

Just no. Pods' wings are absolutely monstrous. They roughly quadruple the size of the model's footprint. If pod wings don't count, then how can Valk wings?

I was speaking of the Tau vehicles. As for the Space Marine Drop Pod, I would say that the wings are essentially ineffectual to the operation of the pod once it has landed and can be generally discounted. The wings on the Valkyrie triple the footprint it makes, though are quite effectual in the operation of the vehicle. At the same time, however, one could obviously infer from a logic point that ground artillery and battle cannons are not designed for swatting at aircraft. That would be akin to trying to use a mortar or hand grenades to try and knock down a close air support craft. It is possible, but unlikely.

Skinnattittar wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I would reply to you that the pods are much smaller features of the whole vehicle and do not so drastically effect the size of the model as the wings do on the Valkyrie.

Just no. Pods' wings are absolutely monstrous. They roughly quadruple the size of the model's footprint. If pod wings don't count, then how can Valk wings?

I was speaking of the Tau vehicles. As for the Space Marine Drop Pod, I would say that the wings are essentially ineffectual to the operation of the pod once it has landed and can be generally discounted. The wings on the Valkyrie triple the footprint it makes, though are quite effectual in the operation of the vehicle. At the same time, however, one could obviously infer from a logic point that ground artillery and battle cannons are not designed for swatting at aircraft. That would be akin to trying to use a mortar or hand grenades to try and knock down a close air support craft. It is possible, but unlikely.

Well except when you consider weapons like the Hydra Flak Cannon or SAM (Represented by Krak Missiles). If for some reason these could see the wing but not the hull, if you go by the "ignore Wings" you have to ignore the wings for eveything, they could not shoot at it. And as I said, a Glancing blow on the Wing to make it crash has the same results as a Direct hit on the body, so you should allow the wings to be fired at.

I think in our group we'll play this one 'househammer', and measure to the base for things like assaults, embarking/disembarking, and DT, but count the wings for LOS and measuring certain ranges. I really don't think that the Valk is playable as an all or nothing model; It breaks too many of the conventions that 40K has had until now. I've had the opportunity to see how Valks work in two games so far, and we didn't have any questions about it, but I'm sure they'll spring up. Luckily the players in my group trust me enough that they'll go with any ruling I make, at least until the end of the game, at which point we discuss it and come up with a consensus. Unluckily this attitude comes from most of them not caring enough about the rules to know when a problem is really a problem and why.

I would say the wings count for the purposes of LOS, though if you have only view of the wings, they are in serious Hull Down (3+ Cover Save?), but not for blast templates. And as for Hunter Killer Missiles, they're not SAMs (nowhere have they ever been described as such), they are more like TOE missiles in my and just about everyone's opinion who knows what a TOE missile is. Even if, then that is only two weapons out of the near innumerable number of weapons capable of harming a Valkyrie.

I have another problem with valks, They can be sitting right on top of an objective yet still not contest it, because they have that stupid 6 in. stand.

The problem is that no mater what an individual gaming group rules, tournaments may have a totally different interpretation.

This is one instance where I think the INAT FAQ may prove crucial since I would be suprised if we see a FAQ from GW actually adress all of the VALK questions if any.

This is exctly the kind of thing the GW rules writers just roll thier eyes at and say "Well its obvious what the intentions are, why are you asking these questions."

Because they just dont understand the RAW mindset. Thats why they write such goofy rules, because they dont belive clarity is that important in friendly games (after all competive players are bad for the hobby and should be discouraged).

This is why I love GW's Models and Fluff, and hate their editing and rules writting staff with a passion.

Generally, most players are pretty sane. The ones you have to look out for are the ones who are playing to win. Take a field look at the issue for most things, such as a Valkyrie contesting an objective. Will those Saints on Guardsmen shoulders NOW blast at anything that comes near the objective that isn't Imperial? Why yes, yes they would. Wings are another issue. You can't really fly without even one of them. But what sort of damage can they take? The A-10 is a tough bird, and can have big chunks knocked off, but it isn't a hard target (Ak47 ammunition can push through the wings) and they will still fly with 1/3 of a wing blown off, or an 18" hole torn through it, just to name some true life stories. Considering that the Valkyrie is now among the largest [standard game] vehicles on the table and one of the lightest armored, I would say that some elbow room is in order for the bright new star of the Imperial Guard. Come on guys, we've gone four editions without an ace up our sleeves, let the IG have their cheese too!

As a new IG player (with a brand new Valkyrie sitting on my desk) I am interested in offering some thoughts on this which I hope will make sense, and also some questions.

Treating the wings as part of the hull for shooting and assaulting makes a lot of sense to me. The sides (and thus wings) have an Armour Value, and they should be used. Presumably they can take some punishment, but as stated, if you knock a wing off, the plane comes down. I presume GW not mentioning wings as part of the hull in the main rules is that this is the first model which has a substantial set of wings [Tau vehicles have some big engines, but no wings in the traditional sense]. Seems to me we should count the whole model.

For the base, I had a thought. It is high up in the air, so why not play with it that way. Some people have already mentioned allowing units to walk under the Valk as long as no-one is on the base, and I think it could be a very cool - and real - game-play rule to treat the Valk as being at 6" height for movement and shooting purposes, so you could fly your valks over other units, tanks and terrain. Tanks have a 45 degree firing arch into the air, so you could fly your Valk in over a tank and force it to move to fire at you... Measuring distance to the Valk for shooting or assault purposes should just be on a standard flat surface. I say that mainly because with 6" elevation a weapon with a 24" range would need 23.25" to hit the Valkyrie 'in the air', so I suspect it would unnecessarily just slow down the game.

For blast templates, I would suggest that the Valkyrie would only be hit if the centre of the blast template (the hole in the middle of the template) touches the Valkyrie. The shooter has made a 1 in 10 shot and detonated on the valkyrie - well done. If the blast marker hole is not on the valkyrie, then the blast landed on the ground, and the Valk is not affected, as it is in the air. What do you reckon?

Disembarking should probably happen out the back - sadly for my IG guys - this leaves the Valk exposed to being charged if you land facing the enemy troops, or unable to fire at the target (and exposing its rear) if you land it so that your unit faces the enemy. 2" shouldn't be a big problem, but I guess the enemy gets a free choice on what to shoot at.

Although I will be getting a valkyrie, I actually won't be playing with my one (it's going to be one of my display models, joining the skyray, monolith and ork battlewagon in the cabinet).

It's times like this I realise I made the right decision.

Grimble wrote:
For blast templates, I would suggest that the Valkyrie would only be hit if the centre of the blast template (the hole in the middle of the template) touches the Valkyrie. The shooter has made a 1 in 10 shot and detonated on the valkyrie - well done. If the blast marker hole is not on the valkyrie, then the blast landed on the ground, and the Valk is not affected, as it is in the air. What do you reckon?

Disembarking should probably happen out the back - sadly for my IG guys - this leaves the Valk exposed to being charged if you land facing the enemy troops, or unable to fire at the target (and exposing its rear) if you land it so that your unit faces the enemy. 2" shouldn't be a big problem, but I guess the enemy gets a free choice on what to shoot at.

Except for ruins, players are free to hold a blast marker as high over the battlefield as they want so blasts will affect the Valkyrie if any part of the blast ends up over the model as normal. The height of the model makes no difference. Templates are technically supposed to touch the firing model's base so it would be nearly impossible to hit a Valk with a template weapon using the pure RAW.

BTW, where do you get 1 in 10 shot for a blast weapon? 2 of the 6 sides of the dice have a 'hit' marker so they'll hit 1/3 of the time right there and even if they roll a miss the BS reduction applied to the scatter and the size of the Valkyrie model means the center hole can end up remaining over the Valk plenty of times as well.


But I digress, playing purely RAW with the Valkyrie (including moving models under it, etc) could totally work except for disembarking. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the rules allow your Valkyrie to be removed off its base and 'land' which is incorrect. By the RAW the only time a skimmer can be removed from its base is when it gets immobilized or wrecked.

And THAT is the main problem with the Valkyrie's RAW. . .you really aren't able to disembark the models onboard normally (without using that wacky Deep Strike rule) as the access points are more than 2" off the ground.

1/3 to hit 1/2 to pen 1/2 to fail the save for moving fast? 1/12. So I guess including the BS will bring it down to 1/10 for most races.

In a recent Guard vs Guard battle we agreed to a houserule about shooting the Valk/Vendy with (non-barrage ) Blasts. Since the Valk is so high up in the air you are basically shooting at "Level 2" and so the Blast can only affect things on that level. Basically an adaptation of how Templates and Blasts function on Ruins ( small rulebook pg.84 ). Not that this helped my poor birds since my opponent started shooting them with his Basilisk ( indirectly! ) and destroyed them with a ratio of one shot/one kill . And yes, we counted the wings as part of the hull, so getting hit by the Earthshaker shots was painfully easy. So a tip to all you Airmobile Commanders: kill the Basilisks ( or any thing that can shoot Large Blast at your precious Valks ) ASAP.

In a recent game I played my oponent shot at my Valk with a barbed strangler (or somesuch Nid blast weapon). It missed but hit the Griffon behind. I tried to use the ruins rules for blast weapons only affecting the level you shot at but in the end I agreed that the shot came down on my tank (destrying it). Later at the local GW store the manager agreed it would arc down onto somthing, what do you all think?

Well, lets look at it from a Raw Perspective.
Was the Valkyrie in a Ruin? No, so why would you use the Ruin Rules?