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.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting, not arguing the # of angels dancing on a pinhead for fun here, but in the REAL WORLD that this precludes them from deploying troops?

*Its a skimmer.
*2in from the hatch is the written standard. Please cite where a vertical distance has to be measured. As you're making this argument its incumbent upopin you to prove that there is a vertical component.


OT but doesn't it say they can deploy not only via normal means but via grave chute deepstrike (don't have the book in front of me)?

Frazzled wrote:
2in from the hatch is the written standard. Please cite where a vertical distance has to be measured. As you're making this argument its incumbent upopin you to prove that there is a vertical component.


OT but doesn't it say they can deploy not only via normal means but via grave chute deepstrike (don't have the book in front of me)?

The hatch is a part of the hull. That would be two inches measured from the hull section containing a hatch. Whether you measure from the base or from the head (use coherency measurements detailed in Ruins for how vertical measurement works), you still end up with your model in mid-air.

Mid-air being impassable (since you can't stand in it, unless your model is named Arthur Dent), you are told to perform an emergency disembarkation. If even emergency disembarkation is impossible, the unit simply cannot disembark. Without a piece of terrain that comes up to within three to three and a half inches of the hull of a Valkyrie, you would not be allowed to disembark by the current rules. Your only option is Grav-Chute insertion.

OT it does say you can disembark, but does not grant any special exceptions to the disembark rules. All it gives you permission to do is disembark using the normal disembark rules, which for this model can be met by disembarking onto a piece of high terrain. Or Grav-Chute insertion.

So you're postulating this for real life (TM) gaming and not just having fun exploring the limitaiton of GW writing ability?

Er...ok....

Sorry, I was responding to your questions that I quoted, not to whether I would expect someone to play by the rules in an actual game.

I answered that in my earlier post, where I said I would be fine with them disembarking as if it was on a shorter base unless the person I was playing had ever used a RAW argument to enforce something that was obviously idiotic on me. Then he can suck it up and deal with the idiotic (in my opinion) RAW for Valkyries.

Kaaihn wrote:Sorry, I was responding to your questions that I quoted, not to whether I would expect someone to play by the rules in an actual game.

I answered that in my earlier post, where I said I would be fine with them disembarking as if it was on a shorter base unless the person I was playing had ever used a RAW argument to enforce something that was obviously idiotic on me. Then he can suck it up and deal with the idiotic (in my opinion) RAW for Valkyries.

gotcha. I like your turnabout justice.

The writing of the rule in the codex makes it clear they indended regular disembarkation, this is the kind of thing that makes Jervis Johnson talk about how competitive gamers hurt the hobby.

Yes this codex should have had a clear set of rules for dealing with the flying stand, but in the GW mindset it would simply never occur to anyone to rules lawyer like this.

They make this beautiful model everyone wants to use in games and than dont bother to even think about how it will actually effect the rules. I can only dream of the day that someone who actually cares about good rules writting gets a position at GW, i know its about as likley as - well I cant think of anything here at the moment that would not offend someone so feel free to fill in here with "random extraordinarilly unlikley event" of your choice.

*2in from the hatch is the written standard. Please cite where a vertical distance has to be measured. As you're making this argument its incumbent upopin you to prove that there is a vertical component.

The rulebook doesn't say that models have to be placed within 2" of the access point on a horizontal plane, simply that they must be placed within a maximum distance of 2". Vertical distance is still distance, therefore it must be included in the measurements unless otherwise specified.

Did i read that the fler IS able to assaulted? I was under the impression you could not assault its base.

I believe there is support to the vertical distance arguments screwing up the raw since you have t add 12' to the firing distance when the flyer is targeted in the shooting phase.

I don't really care at all about the (dis)embarking rules for game play purposes. I am more upset that you can clearly shoot under it, however not assault it and not move under it. I would use it to keep gun lines from being assaulted or to hinder opponent movement.

I don't play IG so if any of my info is wrong i apologize

I believe there is support to the vertical distance arguments screwing up the raw since you have t add 12' to the firing distance when the flyer is targeted in the shooting phase.

The amount of distance it adds is entirely dependent upon the distance you are away from the model. The further away you are the less difference the height makes. You can use the formula for calculating the hypotenuse of a right triangle to figure out exactly what kind of a difference it makes.

Deuce11 wrote:Did i read that the fler IS able to assaulted? I was under the impression you could not assault its base.

As has been mentioned, the assault rules specifically allow you to assault skimmers by moving into contact with the base or the hull.

insaniak wrote:

Deuce11 wrote:Did i read that the fler IS able to assaulted? I was under the impression you could not assault its base.

As has been mentioned, the assault rules specifically allow you to assault skimmers by moving into contact with the base or the hull.

Since he mentioned subtracting 12" of the range of weapons firing at the valkyrie, I think the problem here is that he thinks they use flier rules. They do not. A valkyrie is a skimmer in all respects in the IG codex, and can be assaulted, and is no more difficult to shoot than any other unit.

Yes.

In terms of RAW, this is pretty cut and dry.

Of course, the old "terminators don't have terminator armor" issue was cut and dry, as was this exact same issue with regards to Wave Serpents.

I think that in casual play anybody that tried to enforce that rule would quickly find himself running short of friends, and I'd like to find a TO with the cajones to make that ruling.

I'm guessing it's going to require some calling ahead to RTTs and the like until this gets hashed out.

Has anybody seen anybody actually enforce this rule, or any other silly RAW ruling?

Work with me on this but I think I might have a middle ground solution that fluffers and RAW types could actually agree on.

I'm in the process of building a couple Valks right now. And if I leave the back hatch hanging open it lowers the lowest point of the dismbarkation ramp by a about 2". Then when I mount the Valk on the base I have the rear facing the direction of the stand that slopes slightly downward and I actually sink the stand into the base (much like the current flying stands sink into their base). The base is 1/8" thick so this brings it even closer to the ground. With all this done the lowest point on my Valk is just about 3" from the ground. Now assuming your objective marker is at least 1/8" thick (most are actually much taller--like some barreles etc.) you should be within 3" inches of the objective marker. So that takes care of being within 3" for objective missions.

Now disembarking troops within 2" is still a bit of a problem but if you use the model as opposed to its base (ever played with a defiler?...Everbody does it) then your typical guardsman will easily be within 2" of the hanging down hatch (my standing Tallarn seem to have a good heads worth of left over space).

I'm no technical writer, so I apologize in advance if my modeling instructions were not 100% clear. I wish I could post some pics with measurements but I leave that to you hard core grognards.

I hope this helps

Remember folks, GW is a minatures company, not a gaming company. Sigh.

The bottom line is that if you follow the rules exactly as they're written now, then Valks are clearly acting in a way that the authors didn't intend. GW's playtesting is awful. I've known playtesters, have seen their sessions, have seen their suggestions, and then watched GW ignore all their advice and come up with crap rules like this one.

If you're going to hold your opponent to rules which are clearly badly written and not thought out, then you're really kind of being unfair to IG players. Wave Serpents can hold objectives but Valks can't because GW designs a horrendous new flying stand? But I can still assault a Valk at the same time. Just doesn't make sense.

Go ahead and follow the rules to the letter and all you're going to do is upset your guard opponents. If you really need to play that way and pull badly written rules out to beat your opponents, it's probably not the best choice in how to play the game.

It's quite simple for me:
If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.

I will not vote in this biased and stupidly worded poll.

Unbelievable that people would try to screw this awesome new model, then act offended when people state quite clearly that to do so would be dumb.

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.

Sounds reasonable.

I think everyone is in agreement that they wouldn't force their opponent to play by RAW here (unless he was a RAW jerk lol).

But even with that said we can't deny that the poor writing of the valks rules forces us to come up with some kind of common sense house rule so that everyone can have fun.

The problem is what is this rule going to be? Its not just as simple as saying disembarking happens from the base. The valk deviates from the norm in other areas.

Does objective capturing happen from the base or the hull? Or both? Is the valk allowed to cap a ground objective (a coin) and also one that is placed 6" up in a ruins.

And of course in some respects the weird nature of the Valk doesn't gimp it but makes it better. Shooting at an angle shaves off range for example, which can hurt for meltas.

Out of all of the advantages and disadvantages which ones are we taking and leaving? I think this was the main point of the thread.

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.

This is just silly... you can't apply a rule at whim, you need to be at least consistent one way or the other.

Also the only terminators a valk can carry are GK's and if you're afraid of GK Termies (who can't use the new Storm Shield rules), then you really need to quit the game now...

As I have stated on previous threads, my valks won't even have the flying stands because they're simply awful. If someone really won't agree to my low flying valks, then we won't have a game. I doubt it would be fun to play against someone who's that much of a rules lawyer anyway.

Even Willy who's adamant about sticking to the rules has said he'd probably let someone slide in an actual game, but he wouldn't play that way himself.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.

This is just silly... you can't apply a rule at whim, you need to be at least consistent one way or the other.

Also the only terminators a valk can carry are GK's and if you're afraid of GK Termies (who can't use the new Storm Shield rules), then you really need to quit the game now...

As I have stated on previous threads, my valks won't even have the flying stands because they're simply awful. If someone really won't agree to my low flying valks, then we won't have a game. I doubt it would be fun to play against someone who's that much of a rules lawyer anyway.

Even Willy who's adamant about sticking to the rules has said he'd probably let someone slide in an actual game, but he wouldn't play that way himself.

And yet I've had people who seem to be getting seriously angry at me...

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

solkan wrote:It's quite simple for me:
If the Valkyrie's carrying terminators, all measurement is going to be to and from that hull floating 6" above the table, and unless those termie models have learned to fly, they're only getting out using the grav shutes.
In the absence of terminators or assassins in the guard player's army, then measuring all distances to and from the base seems completely reasonable.

This is just silly... you can't apply a rule at whim, you need to be at least consistent one way or the other.

Also the only terminators a valk can carry are GK's and if you're afraid of GK Termies (who can't use the new Storm Shield rules), then you really need to quit the game now...

As I have stated on previous threads, my valks won't even have the flying stands because they're simply awful. If someone really won't agree to my low flying valks, then we won't have a game. I doubt it would be fun to play against someone who's that much of a rules lawyer anyway.

Even Willy who's adamant about sticking to the rules has said he'd probably let someone slide in an actual game, but he wouldn't play that way himself.

I think in Solkan's case he was being funny. Stating that if someone tried to exploit RAW against him (such as filling up a valk with heaps of Terminators that by RAW count as taking up 1 space in a valk) then he would force that person to continue playing by RAW and not allow them to disembark.

While I find this prospect amusing it does bring up the important issue of is it ok to chop and choose your RAW? I myself am always confused by this. So many people stick so adamantly to the concept of RAW and yell at you if you ever try and hazard a guess at the developers intentions and play by that. But then despite that they often break RAW when in their opinion a rule is completely messed up. They seem to draw a line where RAW turns into RAI. But who gets to decide that line? Is it okay to use RAW to put 10 GKT in a valk but then break RAW and claim RAI to have them disembark from a Valk?

I'm of the thought that units should be able to embark/disembark as per the diagrammed examples in the rulebook (top-down orientation only, nothing requiring 2" vertical space), though this does seem to permit the deployment out of other transports on the level above or below the one the vehicle is on.

Though RAW has them unable to contest objectives, and RAI seems to contrary to this, I would be fine with either ruling. On the one hand, a helicopter full of soldiers can't take and hold a building unless the soldiers rope down and get dirty, but on the other hand, why should the Valkyrie suffer from seemingly unintended deficiencies that no other unit has to deal with?

If I ever get Valks, I'll hold myself to RAW until this is FAQ'd. If I face anyone with Valks, I'll let it slide. No need to be a dick to my opponent.

CK

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:I'm of the thought that units should be able to embark/disembark as per the diagrammed examples in the rulebook (top-down orientation only, nothing requiring 2" vertical space),...

The examples being top-down does not preclude any need to measure vertically, particularly when the rules never actual say to measure only on the horizontal plane.

We're told to measure the distance between two points. The RAW, in that case, is to measure the distance between those two points. Not the distance on only one plane between those points.

In practice, at least from my experience, most players do in fact just measure horizontally for deployment. But it's not actually what the rules tell us to do.

It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

I think they only did a 2 dimensional example because it would be extremely difficult to show proper disembarkation in three dimensions without using multiple camera angles. The rules say "within 2 inches."

Yeah, yeah, I know. The intent is there, but for dense players (like me) there needs to be more.

Keep in mind the distinction between what is SAID and what is SHOWN. "Within 2 inches" does not translate to "Within 2 inches in three dimensions" in my brain when the visual aid shows only an overhead measurement being taken.

Again, a minor point of contention that will need clarification.

CK

In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW, For friendlies though, I think it is obvious that RAI should let troops disembark and allow for contesting objectives - no need to punish a friend for GWs inability to playtest and write quality rules.

I would have the discussion with my opponent prior to either kind of game, and include a tournament organizer in the discussion in a competitive game - just to make everything clear.

I am a big stickler for RAW (correctly sized vehicles, etc) in competitive games. If I can win a prize, and I paid an entry fee, I expect the RAW to be followed verbatim.

In friendly games, I support "Rule of Cool".

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW, For friendlies though, I think it is obvious that RAI should let troops disembark and allow for contesting objectives - no need to punish a friend for GWs inability to playtest and write quality rules.

I would have the discussion with my opponent prior to either kind of game, and include a tournament organizer in the discussion in a competitive game - just to make everything clear.

I am a big stickler for RAW (correctly sized vehicles, etc) in competitive games. If I can win a prize, and I paid an entry fee, I expect the RAW to be followed verbatim.

In friendly games, I support "Rule of Cool".

I think that the RAI is pretty clear for troops to be able to embark/disembark, as disembarking is mentioned in the rules for the valkyrie in the codex. However, I think that the RAI for measuring to the hull in other instances (for contesting objectives, checking range, etc.) is not as clear, and you should follow RAW because otherwise you break too many conventions of the game. Like my example with the rhino earlier: if a rhino cannot contest an objective at the top of a 6" building, why should the valkyrie be able to contest a floor-level objective? Seeing as the height of the valkyrie will also ensure that a melta-gun will never be able to get in half-range I don't see it as being unfair.