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.

Okay I see the point of it's a game, but if you use real life terms like, wings, hull, vehicle, these define things in the game as well. Saying Real life verbage is not game verbage is incorrect. The game uses real life terms to define things unless specifically in the rulebook it is defined.

Because GW doesn't a have a FAQ, you need to apply basic logic and definitions to the rulebook. Before any rules like LOS, or measuring distances, assaulting can be applied to a model you need to establish parts of the model. First step, what is a hull? GW rulebook states things like wings do not extend the model's area. So you need to define a hull, because that is what's used for a lot of combat interaction.

I'm not trying to say I'm 100% right or not but I want to explain the logic behind what I'm saying. If you're able to see both sides of the argument then you are able to make an informed decision.

Also to spite the personal attack, I did have marines show me the hull on an IG skimmer. They agreed with me.

jbalthis wrote:Okay I see the point of it's a game, but if you use real life terms like, wings, hull, vehicle, these define things in the game as well. Saying Real life verbage is not game verbage is incorrect. The game uses real life terms to define things unless specifically in the rulebook it is defined.

Because GW doesn't a have a FAQ, you need to apply basic logic and definitions to the rulebook. Before any rules like LOS, or measuring distances, assaulting can be applied to a model you need to establish parts of the model. First step, what is a hull? GW rulebook states things like wings do not extend the model's area. So you need to define a hull, because that is what's used for a lot of combat interaction.

I'm not trying to say I'm 100% right or not but I want to explain the logic behind what I'm saying. If you're able to see both sides of the argument then you are able to make an informed decision.

Also to spite the personal attack, I did have marines show me the hull on an IG skimmer. They agreed with me.

Tri wrote:Happens to us all. Good for you for trying to play fair.

Personally I wish GW explained what the hull was on each vehicle.

If gunships wings don't count then nether do my FirePrisms wings ... yep thats right the two bits at the sides are its wings they've nothing to do with the hull.

Edting to add: Were you just saying that asking for your example to be related to the game was a personal insult?

Augustus wrote:During the Hardboy semifinals I encountered an interesting situation (by mistake) where I fired a Prism Cannon at a Valkyrie gunship on a board edge. The Valkyrie's base was entirely on the table but one of it's wings was off the board edge (we found out by mistake actually, no one had noticed during play). The template deviated from center mass onto the off board portion of the wing.

I called it a miss in the event and kept on playing.

...here is a diagram of the situation for clarity*:



*The heavy black line is the board edge.

YMDC: was this actually a miss or not?

I think there are a few other, possibly more specific concerns as well:

(1) Is the gunship illegally placed or not?
(2) Does a (centered blast marker) hit on the wings of a Valkyrie or Vendetta count as a 'hull' hit or not?

I would proffer you missed the hull. If the hull had been placed properly the shot would have been off the table correct? Therefore it would remain off the table.

AdeptArtificer wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is not a modern aircraft. It is a IG skimmer.

Have a marine show you the "Hull" on a IG skimmer.

Real life =/= game rules.

Either way, Valks need discussion before the game until FAQ/Errata.

That's the best advice I've read so far. It prevents most arguments.

Sure, I think thats reasonable, but I also see the real life issue pretty clearly.

A Valkyrie is an aircraft, they don't fly well with a wing shot off. Arguing they do, reality and fiction aside, seems, well pretty tenuous. My gut tells me wing hits for blasts (in the boundary of the table, not like the OP) should count.

This view is supported by the Eldar vehicles that all have c shaped wings and are always played as hits.



These are both hits, aren't they?

I'd like to offer a comment to your statement that the valkyrie could not fly without one of its wings. I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing. I've seen an F-15 that made it back missing almost its entire right wing, A-10s that can be missing half of each wing and still make it back to base. An F-16 flies not because its wings create a great deal of lift but instead because it has a massive amount of power compared to its weight. The wings on said F-16 has hardly any curve to them and are very little in the way of being an airfoil. With all its excess thrust it can keep itself airborne. So to say a valkyrie can't fly because you hit its wing is not entirely accurate, it does have humongous turbine engines which I am sure generate quite a deal of thrust. I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

Augustus wrote:

AdeptArtificer wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It is not a modern aircraft. It is a IG skimmer.

Have a marine show you the "Hull" on a IG skimmer.

Real life =/= game rules.

Either way, Valks need discussion before the game until FAQ/Errata.

That's the best advice I've read so far. It prevents most arguments.

Sure, I think thats reasonable, but I also see the real life issue pretty clearly.

A Valkyrie is an aircraft, they don't fly well with a wing shot off. Arguing they do, reality and fiction aside, seems, well pretty tenuous. My gut tells me wing hits for blasts (in the boundary of the table, not like the OP) should count.

This view is supported by the Eldar vehicles that all have c shaped wings and are always played as hits.



These are both hits, aren't they?

Yes both are hits. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to ignore wings and tails.

IGVamp wrote:I'd like to offer a comment to your statement that the valkyrie could not fly without one of its wings. I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing. I've seen an F-15 that made it back missing almost its entire right wing, A-10s that can be missing half of each wing and still make it back to base. An F-16 flies not because its wings create a great deal of lift but instead because it has a massive amount of power compared to its weight. The wings on said F-16 has hardly any curve to them and are very little in the way of being an airfoil. With all its excess thrust it can keep itself airborne. So to say a valkyrie can't fly because you hit its wing is not entirely accurate, it does have humongous turbine engines which I am sure generate quite a deal of thrust. I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

No one is saying "because it is hit it cannot fly".
What people are saying is that the wing can indeed be hit, and that has the potential to destroy the skimmer. Not that it WILL destroy it - the results are not yet determined.

The only other assertion has been "it is not possible to damage the vehicle because its wing was hit".

Your assertion does nothing to assuage that.

Tri wrote:Yes both are hits. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to ignore wings and tails.

Well... except the part about blast markers and holes and where they fall on the model. If it's off the hull, it's off the hull. The word hull is defined as being the main body of the craft.

* Main Entry: hull
* Pronunciation: \ˈhəl\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hulu; akin to Old High German hala hull, Old English helan to conceal — more at hell
* Date: before 12th century

1 a : the outer covering of a fruit or seed b : the persistent calyx or involucre that subtends some fruits (as a strawberry)
2 a : the frame or body of a ship or boat exclusive of masts, yards, sails, and rigging b : the main body of a usually large or heavy craft or vehicle (as an airship or tank)

This may be considered an SQ - but can someone give me a quick potted summary as to the objections against targeting the wings? I mean I don't try to convince people that the tracks on my LR aren't "part of the hull" - and I even field a Vendetta from time to time.

EDIT: meaning the reason behind it, not the rules per se - is there something dreadfully underpowering about being able to target the wings (apart from the obvious 'getting shot out of the sky' bit of course, smart guy )? Or overpowering if you do count the wings?

IGVamp wrote:...I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing..... I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

Well certainly, but don't you think those airframes are out of the fight at least? Regardless of weather they exploded in fireballs or were just to hurt to fight anymore.

For example I always assumed that every wounding hit in the game was not necessarily a kill, just a casualty, some wound/damage that made the model no longer a combat effective one.

EDIT:

I don't try to convince people that the tracks on my LR aren't "part of the hull"

Oh, excellent point!

EDIT 2 and 3;

The Green Git wrote:

Tri wrote:Yes both are hits. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to ignore wings and tails.

Well... except the part about blast markers and holes and where they fall on the model. If it's off the hull, it's off the hull. The word hull is defined as being the main body of the craft.

OK, by that logic, I say this is a miss then:


Would you support that?

Augustus wrote:For example I always assumed that every wounding hit in the game was not necessarily a kill, just a casualty, some wound/damage that made the model no longer a combat effective one.

You actually have RAW on your side with this one

BGB p.24 wrote:Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle.

Right, like say... a one winged Valkyrie!

My point is the reality parallel supports either side based on perspective.

Augustus wrote:OK, by that logic, I say this is a miss then:


Would you support that?

Dunno... this Falcon/Wave Serpent example is not as clear cut. Is the projection off the front of a Falcon hull or wing? That would depend on GW telling us since we have no real world approximation to draw from. If GW says it's a wing, then I would support your assertion.

I think they are both hits.

I could see a reasonable case for the Valk being the hull only, not the wing and the Eldar wing being part of the hull too, but it's kind of a slippery slope.

Falcons have some obvious super-structure underneath them where the Valks are obviously just wings.

Containing the hard points though, for weapons on the Valk wings, well that's another issue.... It could create a situation where the Valk can shoot, but not be shot at if the wings don't count. That seems wrong.

Frazzled wrote:

Augustus wrote:During the Hardboy semifinals I encountered an interesting situation (by mistake) where I fired a Prism Cannon at a Valkyrie gunship on a board edge. The Valkyrie's base was entirely on the table but one of it's wings was off the board edge (we found out by mistake actually, no one had noticed during play). The template deviated from center mass onto the off board portion of the wing.

I called it a miss in the event and kept on playing.

...here is a diagram of the situation for clarity*:



*The heavy black line is the board edge.

YMDC: was this actually a miss or not?

I think there are a few other, possibly more specific concerns as well:

(1) Is the gunship illegally placed or not?
(2) Does a (centered blast marker) hit on the wings of a Valkyrie or Vendetta count as a 'hull' hit or not?

I would proffer you missed the hull. If the hull had been placed properly the shot would have been off the table correct? Therefore it would remain off the table.

I disagree. If the valkyrie was "placed" properly, then the template would have been placed on the valkyrie in it's proper position, and then still scattered onto the wing. If you believe the wing is part of the hull, then it would have been a hit.

I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

Frankly, if I can't shoot at the wings, I'll not be taking any damage from shots fired from the wings

IGVamp wrote:I'd like to offer a comment to your statement that the valkyrie could not fly without one of its wings. I have seen plenty of aircraft that have managed to make it back to a base with great amounts of damage to a wing. I've seen an F-15 that made it back missing almost its entire right wing, A-10s that can be missing half of each wing and still make it back to base. An F-16 flies not because its wings create a great deal of lift but instead because it has a massive amount of power compared to its weight. The wings on said F-16 has hardly any curve to them and are very little in the way of being an airfoil. With all its excess thrust it can keep itself airborne. So to say a valkyrie can't fly because you hit its wing is not entirely accurate, it does have humongous turbine engines which I am sure generate quite a deal of thrust. I know this is real life vs game but just wanted to address that.

The key difference is that you're looking at the Valk as a flier, while in 40k it's reduced to a skimmer; and it's ability to stay airborne without moving huge distances is a function of the thrusters on the sides of the wings.

And, as kirsanth said, so long as a hit to the wings can cause it to be destroyed the wings are vulnerable.

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

Indeed, this Razorback should get to shoot.

Augustus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

Indeed, this Razorback should get to shoot.

QFT Augustus.

The Valkyrie is clearly such an unusual design that it goes into areas where the rules just aren't adequate.

I'd support the idea that a unit should not be able to be in a position where it can shoot but not be shot at. This does certainly create an issue given the way the wing weapons on the Valk are mounted.

As for the Valk/Razorback pic... you could put a Land Raider, Leman Russ w/sponsons or Predator w/sponsons in the place of the Valk and get similar results. I'm not sure this makes a case for the Valk wings being legitimate targets as much as making a case for wonky models creating situations where rules are not adequate. We still have the wording of the rules stating the hull is the target and point to measure to.

The Green Git wrote:The Valkyrie is clearly such an unusual design that it goes into areas where the rules just aren't adequate. ...

Certainly!

I suspect playing a Valk in practice discretion will be well advised.

(Im still not sure how you can really disembark in 2 inches if the stand is >2 inches off the table?)

I no longer want to play 9 of these. 3 will be difficult enough.

Grav-Chute Insertion, or whatever it is called.

Or get a hill/ruin/etc.

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

PG 60. "when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)"

So according to RAW if you have a curved barrel that can peek around corners. YES, you can shoot at things that can not shoot back at you.

I'll agree it's "lolwut?"

Then you kind of missed my point, even in agreement.

Targeting the WEAPON is not what I refer to - even barrels. That is odd, but has been covered, and yes RAW.

Targeting what the weapon is attached to is (according to some assertions) is not legal either.
So the wing cannot be targeted, but the weapon can be blown off the wing - unless the wing the weapon is attached to is hit, then the weapon cannot be blown off the wing.

THATS a lolwut.

jbalthis wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I think it's fun that wings cannot be shot, but the weapons can be shot off of them.
But only if they are not actually hit.

lolwut?

PG 60. "when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)"

So according to RAW if you have a curved barrel that can peek around corners. YES, you can shoot at things that can not shoot back at you.

I'll agree it's "lolwut?"

Yes but again i ask where wings and tail are in that list? If we run through the list what do we find in common? they're all small spindly things that don't really matter.

Should also be noted that only the guns barrel is ignored the rest of the gun is in the wing so you must at least be able to shoot at that.

"Ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc" seems to imply that something as large as the Valkyrie's wings aren't included. Nothing in that list comes close to the size or significance of the wings.

:EDIT: Ninja'd.

I don't know how this will evolve the discussion, but we do have a consensus approved situation where a part of the model that 'must' be glued onto it doesn't count as hull.

You guys remember the catch-22 of drop pod petals.

You 'have to' open the pod when it lands. But no one wanted to extend the hull of the model and thus the deployment radius to that extreme of a measurement. So someone got clever and proclaimed that "petals aren't part of the hull"

Well, they were when it was closed. Its not really about the definition of the word 'hull' its more about the easiest way to incorporate a new model with weird goings-on into an existing ruleset.

I highly doubt people would discount the wings as 'not part of the hull' if the model had not included the game-breaking flying stand. It has weapons mounted on it. Gun barrels, aerials, banner poles are all pretty insubstantial things, but wings?

If it turns out that the community figures out a good way to handle the valk and its messed up flying stand, then we will build consensus. Unfortunately, it seems like we are going to be responsible for fixing these rules again. Which really pisses me off.

What i'd argue...

If he was coming on from reserve, then i'd say his vehicle was legally placed, and as your shot drifted out of the play area, i would argue that it was an automatic miss based on raw. (understanding that this gives valks that enter play and keep most of their model of table increased defense against blasts)

If he was already in play, I'd argue that his move wasn't legal. A big, substantial part of his model was hanging off the table.

Can you attached weapons to petals/antannae/gun barrels(!!)/banners that are on vehicles?

According to dictionary.com, the hull is:

1. the hollow, lowermost portion of a ship, floating partially submerged and supporting the remainder of the ship.
2. Aeronautics. a. the boatlike fuselage of a flying boat on which the plane lands or takes off.
b. the cigar-shaped arrangement of girders enclosing the gasbag of a rigid dirigible.

So.. uh.. that's not helpful at all.