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:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.

You know who you are.

Cheese Elemental, meet Grav Chute Insertion.
Grav Chute Insertion, meet Cheese Elemental.

except by RAW grave-chute insertion kills the entire squad about 65% of the time.

Red_Lives wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Only TFG would not allow you to disembark passengers from it.You know who you are.

Cheese Elemental, meet Grav Chute Insertion.
Grav Chute Insertion, meet Cheese Elemental.

except by RAW grave-chute insertion kills the entire squad about 65% of the time.

Lol. Are you talking about the "if 1 model fails the Terrain test" thing? If so you are semi correct. The RaW is ambiguous, just like 90% of the Guard Codex

Edit: One does not need that many Linebreaks!

Dude I'll quote the rule.

"...If the unit scatters every model must immediately take a dangerous terrain test. If any of the models cannot be deployed, the unit is destroyed as described on the 1-2 result on the deepstrike mishap table."

If 1 model fails a dangerous terrain test they all die, by RAW>

Yes, and your point? Like I said the rule is Ambiguous. it is unclear whether the "Cannot deploy" is referencing the Deep Strike Mishap or not. Anyway, the way I see it, if they are making Dangerous Terrain tests, they have deployed already. If they Mishap, they never land and never take the DT tests.

That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

Red_Lives wrote:That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

I disagree. It's unambiguous RAW that you must deploy within 2" of an access point.

It is (slightly, IMO) ambiguous as to whether or not a model using Grav Chute Insertion that dies counts as being able to deploy or not.

willydstyle wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

I disagree. It's unambiguous RAW that you must deploy within 2" of an access point.

It is (slightly, IMO) ambiguous as to whether or not a model using Grav Chute Insertion that dies counts as being able to deploy or not.

willydstyle has it correct

insaniak wrote:

The Gopher wrote:I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

The rulebook says that you can only use a base that is different to that supplied for the model with your opponent's consent.

The flight stem is an integral part of the flight base. Changing it changes the base.

Sir,

You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base. No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base. If you want to go down this road on the argument, then hotshot lasguns MUST get FRSRF, because it has the word lasgun in the name. They are not the same thing so please dont act like they are. Im tired of people even try to argue this when they argue against the FRSRF for hotshot lasguns.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion and does make it legal. Of course that stick counts as part of the hull and counts for purposes LOS ect.

broxus wrote:

insaniak wrote:

The Gopher wrote:I'm confused about this, as I thought the flying stand's height was irrelevant and not an essential part of the model and is there merely to illustrate that the model is not traversing via ground. Am I completely wrong on this?

The rulebook says that you can only use a base that is different to that supplied for the model with your opponent's consent.

The flight stem is an integral part of the flight base. Changing it changes the base.

Sir,

You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base. No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base. If you want to go down this road on the argument, then hotshot lasguns MUST get FRSRF, because it has the word lasgun in the name. They are not the same thing so please dont act like they are. Im tired of people even try to argue this when they argue against the FRSRF for hotshot lasguns.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion and does make it legal. Of course that stick counts as part of the hull and counts for purposes LOS ect.

Huh what? First off, conversions are never "legal" because there are no rules for converting models. They are a gaming convention that generally has implicit agreement by other players.

As far as the "hot shot lasgun" vs. flying base thing... well, wargear has specific names, whereas parts of models don't really. The tracks on a tank are "tracks" or "treads." The line between what is a "pintle" vs. a "turret" is similarly blurry. Can you tell me, specifically and unequivocally what the "hull" is on a valkyrie? Whereas a "hot shot lasgun" is always a "hot shot lasgun" and no other weapon is a "hot shot lasgun."

broxus wrote:You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base.

Can you quote a page and paragraph where that's written, please?

No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base.

'Doesn't say I can't' does not a rule make. Never has, and never will.

You need a rule that says you can modify the flight base.


However, in this case, we have a rule (page 3) that says that models are mounted on the bases with which they are supplied, and changes must be approved by your opponent.

A flight base is a base. The flight stem is a part of the flight base.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion

...if your opponent agrees to let you use it...


And, as explained in the other thread, it doesn't allow you to disembark, because disembarking is measured from the hull, not the lowered ramp.

A popsicle stick glued to the ramp is not a part of the hull. It's a popsicle stick glued to the ramp.

Gwar! wrote:

I'll go away now.

... if only...


On topic- As has been said before in this thread, it is totally up to the TO to decide how they will run their tourney and how they will rule on this issue. That is the answer to the OP's question.

Insaniak answered the other part wrt additional issues/possibilities that are out there, but the bottom line is that the OP needs to ask the TO what the ruling will be for that particular Tourney on this particular issue.

"Because by the rules of the game you can't disembark any other way, except onto terrain that is elevated about 3"."

the rules of the Valkyrie/Vendetta allow Grav Chute Insertion for moving flat out, not for disembarking period. if usage of common sense isn't allowed, then modifying the flight stem would be the only option. clearly it wasn't GW's intention to create a nice and shiny new model that nobody can use.

alarmingrick wrote: clearly it wasn't GW's intention to create a nice and shiny new model that nobody can use.

It can be used. Just not (by RAW) exactly as was probably intended.

Which isn't exactly a first for GW. Case in point: Assassins and Inquisitors.

When the DH codex was released, and it was first pointed out on the (now defunct) GW forums that you could only take an allied Assassin if you took an Inquisitor Lord (since you only get one Elite slot and so can't take a regular Inquisitor) the Devs initially said that this was a mistake... they had intended for you to be able to just take a regular Inquisitor. So while they figured out what to do about it, they added a ruling to the DH FAQ stating that the Assassins codex remained valid for those who just wanted an Assassin in their Marine or Guard armies.

Then a couple of months later they decided that errata was simply too hard, so the codex would stand as written and the (by then OOP) Assassins codex could go bye-byes... and so the FAQ was edited to state that C:Assassins was no longer valid, and we were thus stuck with the (completely unintentional) requirement of taking an Inquisitor Lord and associated retinue in order to get an Assassin into other Imperial armies.


The moral: The fact that a given piece of RAW is unintended doesn't mean that it won't stick. Given GW's current phobia on releasing errata, it's entirely possible that they'll come out with some statement to the effect that the Valkyrie doesn't have time to land in the midst of a firefight, or somesuch off-the-cuff explanation, and will rule that Grav Chute is the only way to disembark... because that's what wound up in the book and they don't want to change it as that confuses people.


So by all means use whatever house rules you and your opponent like. But I would recommend against assuming that the common sense answer is the one that will be held up by the rules.

insaniak wrote:

broxus wrote:You are wrong! You can convert the flying stand that attaches to the base to make a flying base.

Can you quote a page and paragraph where that's written, please?

No where in the rules does it say you cant change the flying base only the base.

'Doesn't say I can't' does not a rule make. Never has, and never will.

You need a rule that says you can modify the flight base.


However, in this case, we have a rule (page 3) that says that models are mounted on the bases with which they are supplied, and changes must be approved by your opponent.

A flight base is a base. The flight stem is a part of the flight base.

In regards to the popsicle stick, it is an acceptable conversion

...if your opponent agrees to let you use it...


And, as explained in the other thread, it doesn't allow you to disembark, because disembarking is measured from the hull, not the lowered ramp.

A popsicle stick glued to the ramp is not a part of the hull. It's a popsicle stick glued to the ramp.

Let me say this in parts.

First, nowhere does it say that ramps are not part of hulls, so unless you can show me somewhere it is then we have to assume it is because it isnt listed. Read page 56 in the rulebook.

Second, your right about the conversion issue, really no conversions are allowed. THis means you cant use any FW stuff, Green stuff on your models, and to an extreme level glue or paint since they are things that actually convert them. Also, unless the weapon or item comes in the boxed set you can’t mix and match or convert them, technically. (Btw, all this is garbage in my opinion but if you want to go by the RAW this is the case). So if someone wants to become a rules laywer on you can tell them many models they are using are illegal.

Third, A flying base is not a base so the rule on page 3 in the rulebook doesn't apply. Of course if you think they are then you have to agree that hotshot lasguns are actually lasguns and therefore should get FRFSRF. Some of you are contradicting your selves. You are trying get your cake and eat it too. So which is it do Hot Shot Lasguns get FRFSRF and you can’t disembark normally from a Valkyire OR can we not use FRFSRF on Hot Shot Lasguns but can embark and disembark normally from our Valkyire’s if we change the flying stand size. It’s one way or the other!

Though, I think we all know the RAI were to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport, anyone who argues against this has been drinking far too much. We can argue about the RAW for it but WE ALL know what the RAI are for it. All my points are to give some leverage to help win the RAW debate and allow the model to be used as it was intended. I mean did anyone here actually read the White Dwarf that showcased the Valkyire? The entire mission was about embarking the commander and extracting him off an overran planet. In fact they set the Valkyire down on the table and never even used the 'flying base'

“Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent ‘flying bases’ under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmers hull, with the exceptions of the vehicles weapons, access points, and fire points which all work as normal. The skimmers base is effectively ignored except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicles hull, its base, or both.”

It even states that the flying base is ignored except for assaults and don’t count, they even put the work ‘flying base’ in its own grouping and TELL you its ignored.

First, nowhere does it say that ramps are not part of hulls, so unless you can show me somewhere it is then we have to assume it is because it isnt listed. Read page 56 in the rulebook.

Awesome, that means I can attach 48" long popsicle sticks to the front of my Land Raider to extend the ramp, deploy it sideways, then pivot on the spot to get a first turn charge on anything on the board. You're cool with that, right? After all, it's part of the hull.

Better yet, I think I'll make all of my heavy flamer gun barrels 24" long.

Feel free to make drastic modifications to your vehicles to gain an advantage in game. Just don't expect anyone to let you use it, including tournament organizers.

Though, I think we all know the RAI were to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport,

As said many, many, many times now, using the rules as written is treating the Valkyrie as a normal transport.

Inventing house rules is not treating the Valkyrie as a normal transport, unless you invent house rules for all of your other vehicles as well.

Danny,

So I am lost here? Do you think you can embark and disembark from a Valkyire or not?


My point has been from the very beginning that in terms of objectives, embarking, and disembarking it should be treated as a normal transport and can do all of them.

All my posts are for those who insist on using RAW which doesnt allow these things. It gives players options to either convert the ramp or the flying base to make it fall within the RAW. Do I think it should come to that, absolultely not its slowed. Its your standard fight stupidity with stupidity tactic.

broxus wrote:Danny,

So I am lost here? Do you think you can embark and disembark from a Valkyire or not?


My point has been from the very beginning that in terms of objectives, embarking, and disembarking it should be treated as a normal transport and can do all of them.

All my posts are for those who insist on using RAW which doesnt allow these things. It gives players options to either convert the ramp or the flying base to make it fall within the RAW. Do I think it should come to that, absolultely not its slowed. Its your standard fight stupidity with stupidity tactic.

A normal transport has to measure to its hull for objectives, and to access points (which are on the hull) to embark/disembark. You should try to keep your language more civil as well.

willydstyle wrote:

broxus wrote:Danny,

So I am lost here? Do you think you can embark and disembark from a Valkyire or not?


My point has been from the very beginning that in terms of objectives, embarking, and disembarking it should be treated as a normal transport and can do all of them.

All my posts are for those who insist on using RAW which doesnt allow these things. It gives players options to either convert the ramp or the flying base to make it fall within the RAW. Do I think it should come to that, absolultely not its slowed. Its your standard fight stupidity with stupidity tactic.

A normal transport has to measure to its hull for objectives, and to access points (which are on the hull) to embark/disembark. You should try to keep your language more civil as well.

I have been very civil. I can understand that if people want to play the Valkyire as RAW and forget the RAI, but if they want to go down that road with me I can show them many things they do are RAI and not RAW. I have given two seperate ways to "fix" the Valkyire to make it fall in line with the RAW and I havent seen anyone who can dispute either of those ideas. I think many of you forget the rule on page two which is considered the most important rule. Your RAW obsession has made you forget that rule. There has not been a tournment yet that has ruled in your guys favor to make it so it cant embark or disembark troops, if so please show me the link.

The problem with trying to use RAI is we don't know the game devs actual intentions. Maybe they intended that you could only deploy by Grav Chute or atop a building. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Keep in mind, GW is a minatures company that happens to make a game to support the minis. They're not a gaming company that makes minis to play the game. As a result, their priority is to make cool models first, and then work out the rules later.

I can understand that if people want to play the Valkyire as RAW and forget the RAI

Funny how defining RAI is completely and utterly subjective.

I personally don't believe the model was designed to bestow huge advantages (unobstructed line of sight, being out of melta range) without also taking the disadvantages that come along with it.

According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist. Simply blind adherence to extremely flawed rules. Unfortunately, blind adherence also means deaf adherence, so you will not be able to argue on any grounds with people who play 100% strictly to the letter of RAW.

Designer intent is fairly obvious in most cases, but GW is so inconsistent and obviously does not have sufficient foresight nor hindsight nor communication to keep their game coherent in all situations (check out some older editions of the game when even such a basic rule as 'And they shall know no fear' varies between codices). Especially when dealing with legacy codices (Daemonhunters) or new and obviously not sufficiently clear rules (Valkyrie), I believe that a liberal dash of common sense is needed before trying to apply straight rules as written to a problem the rules were obviously not designed for.

To answer this dilemma... treating the Valkyrie like a normal transport means... you don't do anything special. You play exactly RAW, meaning you must deploy within 2 inches of the Hull, you measure melta range to the hull.
Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.



Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata? They have multiple means of reliable distribution - White Dwarf, online websites, GW and FLGS, even in each miniatures box...

I'm not sure I follow the issue at hand, maybe I'm just dense? Skimmer rules seem pretty cut and dry to me.

Pg. 71, Skimmers; Measuring Distances-Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer in which case models may move into contact with the with the vehicle's hull, it's base, or both.

According to that you flat out ignore how high off the table the model is for the purpose of dis/embark or assaults. Why the controversy around it?

According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist.

FAQs are an established and accepted source of rules. Always have been, always will be. Even a cursory glance at the forum will tell you this.

Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.

Given that it is common knowledge that GW regularly plays rules incorrectly in battle reports, wouldn't it be common sense not to look on said reports as any source of authority?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Diraphe wrote:I'm not sure I follow the issue at hand, maybe I'm just dense? Skimmer rules seem pretty cut and dry to me.

Pg. 71, Skimmers; Measuring Distances-Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer in which case models may move into contact with the with the vehicle's hull, it's base, or both.

According to that you flat out ignore how high off the table the model is for the purpose of dis/embark or assaults. Why the controversy around it?

You missed the part where all vehicle measurements are made to and from the HULL of the vehicle. The HULL of the Valkyrie is 5.25" in the air. Furthermore, when embarking and disembarking, models must be placed within 2" of the access point, which is also 5.25" in the air.

Trasvi wrote:According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist. Simply blind adherence to extremely flawed rules. Unfortunately, blind adherence also means deaf adherence, so you will not be able to argue on any grounds with people who play 100% strictly to the letter of RAW.

Designer intent is fairly obvious in most cases, but GW is so inconsistent and obviously does not have sufficient foresight nor hindsight nor communication to keep their game coherent in all situations (check out some older editions of the game when even such a basic rule as 'And they shall know no fear' varies between codices). Especially when dealing with legacy codices (Daemonhunters) or new and obviously not sufficiently clear rules (Valkyrie), I believe that a liberal dash of common sense is needed before trying to apply straight rules as written to a problem the rules were obviously not designed for.

To answer this dilemma... treating the Valkyrie like a normal transport means... you don't do anything special. You play exactly RAW, meaning you must deploy within 2 inches of the Hull, you measure melta range to the hull.
Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.



Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata? They have multiple means of reliable distribution - White Dwarf, online websites, GW and FLGS, even in each miniatures box...

The problem with common sense is that with a game as complex as this, common sense varies from person to person. Because of the variance, there will be different levels of interpretation. Interpretation is not law, but rather a flexible understanding that can be changed on a whim. This game needs rules to give it meaning, once we all agree to start unofficially making rules, we open a can of worms no one wants to eat. I am frustrated by the lack of clarity, however, in house games we use house rules to over come. In anything other than house games, I will not use any logic or fast thinking to circumvent what the rules actually say so as to achieve my desired outcome. For example, the rules for Valkyries don't allow them to drop troops, I will not use my brand of common sense or voodoo logic to get my desired outcome. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone else, and I wouldn't want someone doing it to me.

I agree whole heartedly, GW needs to get an errata team that pumps out regular and timely updates.

Trasvi wrote:According to the hardcore rules lawyers on this forum, things like 'designer intention', 'common sense', 'FAQs' and 'precedents' do not exist.

Quit a mouthfull. Most, if not all, "hardcore rules lawyers" acknowledge the existens of Intention and Common Sense. They also acknowledge the fact that they are highly subjective and may vary a great deal between individuals.

Only the most fanatical individuals (yes, im looking at you, Gwar! ) discard the FAQs.

Remember the rules ARE supposed to be used "as written". We all play that way 99% of the time. I have yet to hear a coherent argument for not doing so (and please don't qoute page 3). "I feel the rules should be played differently than they are written" is not a coherent argument.

"I don't think the rules properbly reflect the fluff about Genestealers and I believe they intended them to be able to move 12". They just made a typo".

See? Doesn't make any sense does it?

"I don't think the rules properbly reflect the fluff about Valkyries and I believe they intended them to be able to [insert bit about (dis)embarkation]. They just made a typo".

See? No difference.

Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata? They have multiple means of reliable distribution - White Dwarf, online websites, GW and FLGS, even in each miniatures box...

You got me stumped here. I have NO idea why GW doesn't make proper FAQs?

I simply cannot believe it is because they don't want to admit they made a mistake/unclear rule.
I simply cannot believe it is because they don't have the manpower to do it.
I simply cannot believe it is because they cannot actually see the issues.

I have no idea.

On the other hand: "Spase Marinez have the rule "ATSKNF""
O look, there are no models called Spase Marinez. Only space marines. Sorry, you can't use the rule. They just made a typo.

In your example of Genestealers vs Valkyries - there isn't anywhere that suggests they should move 12". On the other hand, simply the fact of being a transport implies that the valkyrie should possess the necessary tools to function as a transport.
I would also say that the amount of rules queries regarding Valkyries suggest that their functionality is decidedly unclear. More importantly, the number of people I see who DON'T question the rules and simply play that you may deploy within 2" of the base suggests to me that it is unclear and that the logical way of treating the Valk is not the strict RAW sense.


And as for not knowing the RAI... sure, you never know exactly what the dev's were thinking. But there are some things where you can make some pretty damn good guesses that 99% of the reasonable population would also make.
Would you assume that if your book gave special rules to Spase Marines, the designers intent was that Space Marines were unaffected?

Steelmage99 wrote:Only the most fanatical individuals (yes, im looking at you, Gwar! ) discard the FAQs.

I love you too hunnybunny!

However, I just want to point out, I do not discard the FAQ, I Discard the parts of the FAQ that are rules changes. For example the Deff Dread Attacks Question. The rules are utterly Clear on the subject, and the FAQ is wrong. If they wanted to change the number of attacks, they should have put it as an errata, not an FAQ.

Gwar! wrote:

The Gopher wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, you are utterly wrong.

I thought politeness was stressed in this forum? You may be right a good portion of the time Gwar, but your adversarial responses don't really help get your point accross.

Christ All Mighty, you ask if you are wrong, and I let you know you are, and then you get pissy about it?

A simply yes was sufficient, throwing the word 'utterly' in was unnecessary to getting your point across and just makes you sound elitist and rude.

The Gopher wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

The Gopher wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, you are utterly wrong.

I thought politeness was stressed in this forum? You may be right a good portion of the time Gwar, but your adversarial responses don't really help get your point accross.

Christ All Mighty, you ask if you are wrong, and I let you know you are, and then you get pissy about it?

A simply yes was sufficient, throwing the word 'utterly' in was unnecessary to getting your point across and just makes you sound elitist and rude.

Spilled milk - there are better things to talk about.

Flexen wrote:Spilled milk - there are better things to talk about.

There are, however I was irritated that he played himself off as innocent. I'm done with this.