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.

warboss wrote:it's not the hull so it is not used to measure distance for firing at nor is it used to gain a few extra inches in emergency disembarking. it's 5" up off the ground so it can't be charged unless immobilized (and even that is iffy). other than looking cool, the tail serves no in game purpose.

I use Vendettas / Valks frequently in my Guard army.

Comments:

#1: current INAT FAQ (if you're using it) defines everything but the weapon mounts as part of the hull. So in a tourney using that FAQ, shrinking the model is modeling for advantage. If you're just counting the fuselage as the hull in a friendly game, go ahead. You're probably not verifying true LOS from the weapon mounts, either.

#2: All assaults interact with a skimmer's base. Your vehicle isn't immune just because it's on a large flying stand. Valks and Vendettas can be charged as any other vehicle.

What if a gamer came to your store and had several different sized flight stands and had modeled the gunship such that he could fold the wings in when he wanted to? Suppose he has an Inquisitor with Mystics mounted in the gunship and folds out the wings when rolling for spotting distance versus your deep striking units then folds them back when you fire ordnance at it? He places the model on a high flight stand when shooting at your units to ignore intervening terrain as cover then places it on a short flight stand to gain the benefit of cover. Would you be okay with that from a modelling point of view?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:What if a gamer came to your store and had several different sized flight stands and had modeled the gunship such that he could fold the wings in when he wanted to? Suppose he has an Inquisitor with Mystics mounted in the gunship and folds out the wings when rolling for spotting distance versus your deep striking units then folds them back when you fire ordnance at it? He places the model on a high flight stand when shooting at your units to ignore intervening terrain as cover then places it on a short flight stand to gain the benefit of cover. Would you be okay with that from a modelling point of view?

G

yeah, that's got nothing to do with what i asked. i didn't propose having a removable tail that i take off WHEN I WANT TO and put back WHEN IT SUITS ME. i asked if a permanent modelling choice affects the game (which, judging from your post, you think it does).

so, for the people who are against taking off the tail, do you EVER allow opponents to use vehicle conversions? if you're saying the tail has to stay on, your answer should be no since only VERY RARELY does a conversion match the exact dimensions of the original. if someone wanted to use at-43 red blok walkers as sentinels, you'd obviously have to disallow that since they're a half inch shorter which would be modelling for advantage. or if someone with a star wars clonetroopers army had scratchbuilt LAATs (which he matched the body and wing dimensions of the valkyrie exactly) you'd have to refuse to play him as the LAAT doesn't have a super long tail and that would be modelling for advantage. in all seriousness, i can't see those saying no to the tail loss allowing conversions that don't match the shape and dimensions of the original without being hypocritcal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or for instance the guy doing some cool conversions in the catachan special forces blog in p&m. he's using little jeeps/suv's that fit in a valk as his scout sentinels. you'd have to say "nope" as they're twice as long and half as tall as the real sentinels.

willydstyle wrote:I think you'll find that whether or not the tail actually counts as hull is pretty rigorously debated. I'm in the "if it's not decoration it's hull" camp myself.

I don't want to get killed or anything, but so am I, honestly. I just don't buy that whole "WINGS AREN'T HULL!" argument because of what you said, it isn't a decorative ornament, it's an essential part of the vehicle.

I don't care if the A-10 can still fly if you blow half of it up!

warboss wrote:so if you think it's part of the hull, you'd have no problem with someone emergency diserbarking 2" from the tip of the tail?

The FAQ clearly says you measure from the base when embarking/disembarking or claiming objectives. This was an exception made for the valkyrie because of it's stupid height and stupid not-being-a-flyer (flier?) crap.

Even if we didn't have the FAQ though you'd still be breaking a basic rule, you can only embark/disembark from entry points and the "tip of the tail" is not an entry point.

warboss wrote:if you believe the tail is part of the hull

It is part of the hull, because a plane can't very well fly without wings and a tail!

warboss wrote:yeah, that's got nothing to do with what i asked. i didn't propose having a removable tail that i take off WHEN I WANT TO and put back WHEN IT SUITS ME. i asked if a permanent modelling choice affects the game (which, judging from your post, you think it does).

No, it does effect the game, it isn't a matter of opinion.

Personally I would let you use valkyries without tails if you agreed to play like they still had them, so that means no playing with them half-off the table and I can still draw LOS to them. Surely if you're doing this just so they fit better in your case then you wouldn't have any problem with that at all because you aren't deliberately trying to ignore one of the only disadvantages of a valkyrie/vendetta in the first place, right?

warboss wrote:so, for the people who are against taking off the tail, do you EVER allow opponents to use vehicle conversions? if you're saying the tail has to stay on, your answer should be no since only VERY RARELY does a conversion match the exact dimensions of the original. if someone wanted to use at-43 red blok walkers as sentinels, you'd obviously have to disallow that since they're a half inch shorter which would be modelling for advantage. or if someone with a star wars clonetroopers army had scratchbuilt LAATs (which he matched the body and wing dimensions of the valkyrie exactly) you'd have to refuse to play him as the LAAT doesn't have a super long tail and that would be modelling for advantage. in all seriousness, i can't see those saying no to the tail loss allowing conversions that don't match the shape and dimensions of the original without being hypocritcal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or for instance the guy doing some cool conversions in the catachan special forces blog in p&m. he's using little jeeps/suv's that fit in a valk as his scout sentinels. you'd have to say "nope" as they're twice as long and half as tall as the real sentinels.

First of all, there's a difference between a half-inch and cutting the model damn near in half (well, unless it's infantry in which case a half-inch is half, obviously). And in the case of a half-inch, if the converter agrees to treat it as if it's the same size as the model it represents for LOS purposes, then honestly I have no problem with that.

Second, there's also a difference between someone who converts a cool model for the fun of it, and someone who clearly does it because they don't like how big their model is and are claiming they're doing it for a practical reason, or because it "looks cooler". I might buy it if you say they won't fit in a case otherwise (buy a bigger case, Jesus...Sabol cases aren't that expensive and the wings are already removable, surely you could fit both of them in a motor pool bag without cutting them down and ruining them?), but while you claim that's the reason you're obviously very butthurt over the idea of not being able to take advantage of this in-game, which I find rather dubious. If it was really a matter of convenience then why the gak-fit and "Other people can do it why can't I?!"

Third, on clonetrooper LAATs, no I wouldn't play with that unless he pretends it has a super-long tail. It's comparable to playing with low-rider land raiders or super-long battlewagons that let you get into assault quicker, that's a major difference and it changes the way you play with the model in game too much to let it slide.

he's using little jeeps/suv's that fit in a valk as his scout sentinels.

I'd ask if he would play with them like they were the dimension of a regular sentinel.

Sidstyler wrote:*snipped for clarity*

1) The FAQ clearly says you measure from the base when embarking/disembarking or claiming objectives. This was an exception made for the valkyrie because of it's stupid height and stupid not-being-a-flyer (flier?) crap.

Even if we didn't have the FAQ though you'd still be breaking a basic rule, you can only embark/disembark from entry points and the "tip of the tail" is not an entry point.

2) It is part of the hull, because a plane can't very well fly without wings and a tail!

3)Second, there's also a difference between someone who converts a cool model for the fun of it, and someone who clearly does it because they don't like how big their model is and are claiming they're doing it for a practical reason, or because it "looks cooler". I might buy it if you say they won't fit in a case otherwise (buy a bigger case, Jesus...Sabol cases aren't that expensive and the wings are already removable, surely you could fit both of them in a motor pool bag without cutting them down and ruining them?), but while you claim that's the reason you're obviously very butthurt over the idea of not being able to take advantage of this in-game, which I find rather dubious. If it was really a matter of convenience then why the gak-fit and "Other people can do it why can't I?!"

1) if you read through the whole thread, you'd see that i said EMERGENCY DISEMBARKING 2" FROM THE TAIL TIP WHEN IMMOBILIZED. when you're immobilized and a skimmer, you're supposed to take the vehicle off of the base. so, now that i've REPEATED what was previously stated, would you have a problem with someone doing that since the tail is a part of the hull in your not so humble opinion?

2) um, the boeing bird of prey and x-36 planes would like to disagree with you. also, the IN SERVICE b-2 bomber currently killing terroristly in iraq and afghanistan called and said it flies just fine without a tail, thank you very much. no one other than you has talked about using a valkyrie without wings.

3) please stop talking about my butt; you're not my type and it really unbecoming. first off, i don't own any valks as i'm just considering buying them in the future so it's hard to get excited over something that doesn't affect me and might not ever. i do, however, object to people posting "nu uh!" posts that are contradictory or simply change the circumstances of the OP (like the post above comparing the situation to multiple wing variants that i change when it suits me). the only reason i'm considering lopping off the tail is to fit them in the CASES I ALREADY OWN AND AM NOT USING. why should i pay for more useless cases when i have 5!! sitting at home? i'm already lugging a double GW case for my guard army and i'd like to actually bring my ogryns, rough riders, grey knight termie DH allies, and possibly two valks to a game for more options (i never bring the first two units because they don't fit). that would be the limit of what i'm willing to physically carry for a pick up game. there is no "gak fit" as you so vulgarly pointed out; i'm just pointing out the possibly hypocrasy of one point of view. you at least seem to be consistent in your rude attitude so i guess that's a plus.

i posted this to gauge the general 40k populace's reaction to a valk without a tail and the vote is pretty much split. i doubt i'll model them without the tail if i can physically manage to put both valks with removeable tails/wings in a gw standard case along with my other non-core units since opinions run strong on both sides.

Dude, magnets!

Tutorial here: http://www.rogue-market.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2689 - doesn't include anything about the tail, but it's a good source of general info

Magnets here: http://www.rare-earth-magnets.com/SearchResult-CategoryID-28.html

Super easy. Everyone wins. Plus you get a shiny "+1 modeling skillz" badge for your friends to ooh and aaah over.

1) if you read through the whole thread, you'd see that i said DEPLOYING 2" FROM THE TAIL TIP WHEN IMMOBILIZED. when you're immobilized and a skimmer, you're supposed to take the vehicle off of the base. so, now that i've REPEATED what was previously stated, would you have a problem with someone doing that since the tail is a part of the hull in your not so humble opinion?

And if you read through the rulebook it says you deploy within 2" of an access point. That means the sides and the rear ramp. The tail tip is not the access point, so YES, I would still have a problem with someone doing that because it's against the rules.

Show me in the rulebook where it says you can place a model anywhere you want 2" within the hull of vehicle, and explain to me why we even have access points at all.

2) um, the boeing bird of prey and x-36 planes would like to disagree with you. also, the IN SERVICE b-2 bomber currently killing terroristly in iraq and afghanistan called and said it flies just fine without a tail, thank you very much.

And the A-10 which I myself described is designed to fly with half a wing, one engine, and one tail.

So really, I proved myself wrong and you've accomplished nothing by pointing this out, except showing off your knowledge of IRL aircraft.

In any case, I have to ask, so what? Okay, so a valkyrie, judging by real-life examples, could possibly fly just fine without its tail. Which means...I can't target the tail of a valkyrie? If you're using real life to support your argument then why can't I? If I could blow off the tail of a plane with a missile in real life then why can't I in the game? The rulebook states that you can't target weapons or decorations, are you saying the tail and wings are decorations? Are they optional? Could I field a valkyrie without them then if I so wished?

3) where are the rules regarding models being brought partly on the table?

I think the onus is on you to point out where in the rules it says models can be half-on/half-off the table. I dunno how this whole debate thing works though, I might be wrong.

The rule of thumb is usually "If the rulebook doesn't say you can, then you can't." As for your question the only place in the book it even briefly mentions this (probably because most models in the game can't be placed half-on the table without falling off...clearly no one thought this through) is in the section on Reserves, which merely says that you measure from the table edge when coming in from reserve.

In any case, the valkyrie can move up to 24" a turn, you shouldn't ever really have to place it half-on, half-off the table...unless you just want to be difficult.

4) please stop talking about my butt; you're not my type and it really unbecoming.

...this felt appropriate.

first off, i don't own any valks as i'm just considering buying them in the future. the ONLY reason i'm considering lopping off the tail is to fit them in the CASES I ALREADY OWN AND AM NOT USING. why should i pay for more useless cases when i have 5!! sitting at home?

I wouldn't have bought the GW cases in the first place because they are useless.

I'm just offering an alternative. If you really have 5 cases sitting at home not doing anything then I would put them on eBay or trade them in at the store, and use the cash to get a Sabol bag big enough to hold all the other stuff I want to bring to games. But if your only option is butchering the model then I would take the advice posted in this thread and rely on magnets or pins and re-attach them for gaming. Rare earth magnets are stronger than you think, if you do it right it could possibly work.

there is no "gak fit" as you so vulgarly pointed out; i'm just pointing out the possibly hypocrasy of one point of view. you at least seem to be consistent in your rude attitude so congratulations.

I'm not trying to be vulgar, I'm just defending my own point of view. I don't think it's hypocritical at all, I think it's pretty reasonable considering a major cosmetic change like that does have an effect on the game. If you play the model the way it was designed then no one can possibly accuse you of wrongdoing because that's how it was obviously intended to work.

Sidstyler wrote:

1)Show me in the rulebook where it says you can place a model anywhere you want 2" within the hull of vehicle, and explain to me why we even have access points at all.

2)If you're using real life to support your argument then why can't I? ...

3)this felt appropriate.

4)I wouldn't have bought the GW cases in the first place because they are useless.

5)I'm just offering an alternative. If you really have 5 cases sitting at home not doing anything then I would put them on eBay or trade them in at the store

6)I'm not trying to be vulgar, I'm just defending my own point of view. I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

1) immobilized vehicle, emergency disembarkation. immobilized skimmers means the model is removed from the base if possible. if it is destroyed and the exits are blocked, you can perform an emergency disembarkation in which you deploy within 2" of the hull and are pinned IIRC. so... you'd be ok with 2" from the tail tip in this situation?

2) um, yeah, i didn't... you did by bringing up an a-10. i'm just rebutting in your choice of a medium.. IRL.

3) i prefer the south park butters version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxCSSzb0I9o

4) i actually rather like them. i own a bunch of the smaller ones and have been trading over the past year since getting back into 40k for the larger ones. i've moved a half dozen times in the past 10 years and previously used them on a biweekly basis with almost no models breaking. i simply prefer the hard case to the sabol transports (own one also) or the more recent battlefoam alternatives (which are nicer but $$$). my cases have been good to me and i'm loyal to them.

5) i beat you to it. 3 of them are payment pending on bartertown now that i've got my 3 double sized cases.

6) but you are when you refer to another poster's anatomy in a sexual fashion as well as swearing in the same post (regardless of whether or not the dakka vulgarity filter turns it into "gak" or not). and you're not hypocritical if you *do* require that people with any vehicle conversion use the original model's dimensions for LOS/etc. i'm just stating that i believe some people would be.

either way, problem solved if romeo of battlefoam fame can determine if i can fit this and another infantry foam in a gw case.

Where is the other pair of wings?

Personally, I'm planning on dropping the tail on my Valk's, as I just don't like them.

SJ

Personally, I'm planning on dropping the tracks on my Land Raiders, as I just don't like them.

1) immobilized vehicle, emergency disembarkation. immobilized skimmers means the model is removed from the base if possible. if it is destroyed and the exits are blocked, you can perform an emergency disembarkation in which you deploy within 2" of the hull and are pinned IIRC. so... you'd be ok with 2" from the tail tip in this situation?

So this whole "deploying 2" from the tail tip" thing you've been going on about will only come into play when your valkyrie is immobilized and somehow all exits have been blocked?

In that case, yeah, if you were immobilized and forced to land, and all access points were blocked, even though I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in which the rear access point would be blocked but not also the tip of the tail, but I'm rolling with it...you could disembark 2" from any part of the hull.

But what are the odds that there will be terrain/models perfectly placed around the valkyrie so that all but that one part of the hull is blocked? The rule says remove the base "if possible", if there's a swarm of tanks or infantry beneath you I don't think it's possible...

but you are when you refer to another poster's anatomy in a sexual fashion

Okay, this is starting to get funny. You do realize I wasn't coming on to you, yeah? I have no idea how long you've been on the internet, but "butthurt" is a fairly common term used to describe someone when they're frustrated, usually if they're venting in a rather whiny way.

I don't know if you keep bringing this up because you honestly don't know or if you're just screwing with me, but still.

as well as swearing in the same post (regardless of whether or not the dakka vulgarity filter turns it into "gak" or not).

I swear a lot, more often than not that's just a little bit of me slipping out and I'm almost never actually mad when I do it (if I ever did post when I was fuming mad every other word would have to be filtered). I don't post here as often as I do on other forums, but I'm actually a tad (in)famous for it. I have to make an actual conscious effort not to swear when I post just to keep myself from getting banned.


Oh, another thing: I think I exaggerated a bit on how big the tail booms really are, it's more like 1/3 of the model and not fully half. That's still a lot though.

Anyway, I was actually going to suggest Battlefoam trays for your valkyries, but I was under the impression you didn't want to spend money on storage at all. But yeah, if those will fit in a GW case then go for that, definitely worth it if you ask me.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Personally, I'm planning on dropping the tracks on my Land Raiders, as I just don't like them.

It makes about as much sense...but that's just my opinion.

What if a gamer came to your store with his landraider bottom half cut off and he said it was modeled that way because his chapter had found an STC that showed them how to make them into tunnelers so his conversion was basically a very low riding landraider he could hide behind his rhinos? Would you be cool with that?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:What if a gamer came to your store with his landraider bottom half cut off and he said it was modeled that way because his chapter had found an STC that showed them how to make them into tunnelers so his conversion was basically a very low riding landraider he could hide behind his rhinos? Would you be cool with that?

G

since i consider the hull to be part of the hull (crazy, i know), i wouldn't. now if someone came in with a dark eldar raider with the tail and spikey protrusions cut off (which i don't consider to be the hull and is a similar comparison *gasp*), i'd be ok with that.

wouldnt the valk crash without the tail fin?

The Valk would crash even with it, so that's not a very good comparison.

A valk doesn't need a tail to fly about as much as my hammerheads don't need turrets to shoot. I'll just take the turrets off. And maybe the engines too, they don't need to be there, right? I hate how the front of my hammerhead looks, I'll just cut the parts that stick out off. What's left? not much to shoot at. I'll do the same with my piranhas too.

You can say you're just doing it in friendly games but it's not very friendly if you're doing everything you can to ensure your model has an advantage.

On the useful side: this is a link to a battlefoam case with a pre-cut Valk section, which works well and will also hold up to four chimera hulls and some weapons teams or vehicle turrets. Others have offered advice on pinning and magnets to allow the model to break down for storage.

The INAT FAQ has a rules clarification about how the Valk and other large models are brought onto the table. In short: get the base all the way on. As mentioned before: INAT has the tail and wings as part of the hull for shooting ... and yes, that ruling sucks when watching a plasma cannon shoot at your Vendetta.

On the rules side, this should be "is modeling for advantage modeling for advantage?" Seems like you're going to use an altered model anyway. You're unlikely to be able to use it in anything but beer-and-pretzel games. Nothing stopping you from stuffing a diecast Sopwith Camel, or a plastic X-Wing, or even a paper cup on a stick onto the table and calling it a Valkyrie in those games.

Seems like the rest aren't conversion questions or modeling questions, but the search for and undue advantage. A poll of dakkaites doesn't make that valid.

warboss wrote:since i consider the hull to be part of the hull (crazy, i know)

So do you honestly believe you should be allowed to have 1/3 of a vehicle sticking out behind a building and not have to worry about getting shot? Why? Because the dictionary says "hull=fuselage"?

Just curious, would you let me play my devilfish/hammerheads this way? If you were targeting one of my vehicles and all you could see was an engine nacelle sticking out behind a hill or something, then can I claim that you can't actually see it since that's not the "hull"? Or is that not fair?

Or how about this one, what if the vendetta is in front of a building and the fuselage is blocked entirely, but the wings are sticking out? I'm guessing since LOS is drawn from the weapon then you can shoot me with your dirt-cheap twin-linked lascannons, but I can't retaliate since the only part I can legally shoot at in your mind is conveniently hidden. Weapons can't be targeted, and I guess the wings can't either despite the fact that they're huge and the only reason why I'm being shot to begin with.

And since planes can fly without tails, wings, etc., this is perfectly fair and balanced and makes complete sense, and I'm just "crazy" for seeing it any other way.



You know, I wasn't aware that the valkyrie/vendetta was such a gakky, horrible unit that it needed all these extra advantages to make it worth taking. Always happy to be proven wrong I guess.

Just to throw it out there my friend showed me a neat trick to use with magnets. Instead of using two magnets to stic things together use a magnet of your choosing and the head of an 8 penny nail or larger depending on the magnet. The iron in the nail will attract the magnet with more force than two magnets and the rough surface of the nail head wont allow it to slide off. I bet 2 1/8" magnets and 8 penny nail heads would hold that tail on there nicely.

Maybe I'm thinking about this in entirely the wrong way...

I take back everything I said, I'm done bitching about the valkyrie. Instead I'm going to get to work on making low hills that hide my hammerheads perfectly...all but their railguns.

Just because this thread brought up the old fallacy once again:

It doesnt matter if an aircraft CAN fly after getting a huge chunk blown out of it, that is taken into account in the 40k rules....you rolled a 1 on the damage table. The important part is that an aircraft CAN be destroyed after getting even a small chunk blown out of it, this means that a higher number was rolled in 40k terms. Any real world example of any type or aircraft surviving even massive amounts of damage doesnt support even a fluff arguement.

Its not about whether or not a vehicle can still fly after taking damage, its about whether or not damage can knock it down.

Yes, an A-10 can often still return to base after having a hole blown in its wing (altho this does cause it to leave the combat, so in 40k terms its gone) but an A-10 can also crash after having a hole blown in its wing.


Can damage to any aircraft's tail cause it to crash? Yes, damage to a tail can possibly cause a crash. So using this real world fluff arguement means that shooting at a tail can crash the vehicle, so removing said tail would indeed be modelling for advantage.




All of that is also bringing real world fluff arguements into a ymdc debate, which doesnt belong here in the first place. But since its already been brought, just wanted to point out that its not being considered correctly.



Sliggoth

I would not shave a Valkyrie because it wouldn't look right, but I am all for using a compact flyer for in game advantage and do so quite deliberately ansd wthout shame.

Now before you pounce on me the in game advantage I am looking quite deliberatelty for is convenience. 40K is a scaled game, however while ground scale and weapons ranges are scaled miniatures are not. This means thataircraft in particular have an normous footprint which is grossly inconvenient. Got Valyries on the tabletop, got them where you need them, then you also have a a large area of the table surface in a likely quite critical place covered.

Larger size is as much an unfair advatage as small, though this analogy doesnt apply to flyers. Remember fish of fury, how did it work: Essentially you use the size of the devilfish (also wave serpents) to keep the soliders that came out the back out of of flamer range or charge opportunities. Clearly this is ridiculous, someone at the front of a vehicle not being in range of troops disembarking from the other end.
Yet this was done time and again and was considered fair tactics.

I use the Grendel miniatures Corvus for my flying transport needs, this is small but looks right. its also cheap at about a third of the price. Sure it will be far harder to target, but that to me is a fringe benefit. I am more interested in being able to land troops in the town square between four sets of ruins, something a Valkyrie or two cannot do unless the town square is like Red Square and the ruins too far away for the soldiers to trot to.

I like the Valkyrie kit but dont want any, sometimes less is more.

Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

G

Orlanth wrote:Larger size is as much an unfair advatage as small, though this analogy doesnt apply to flyers. Remember fish of fury, how did it work: Essentially you use the size of the devilfish (also wave serpents) to keep the soliders that came out the back out of of flamer range or charge opportunities. Clearly this is ridiculous, someone at the front of a vehicle not being in range of troops disembarking from the other end.
Yet this was done time and again and was considered fair tactics.
.

I don't know about wave serpents but vendettas are only about 20-30 points more than a devilfish (not to mention the base 200 points of firewarriors and devilfish to make the tactic work anyway) and have a GREAT deal more firepower and mission flexibility. Besides, TLOS in 5th edition pretty much nerfed the fof tactic; you can still fire your bazillion lascannons from your vendetta.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

G

They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

willydstyle wrote:
They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

Yeah, but no worse than the GW figs used half the guys at a normal local store once they've been unleashed with their bad glue jobs and too much undiluted paint. Looking like crap probably isn't the criteria we're looking for.

willydstyle wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

G

They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

1. I dont do tournaments

2. The assembled kit shown is not my own

3. I converted mine to have a deeper carrier bay, its no larger footprint but somewhat taller.


I do recommend the Corvus, got mine for AT-43 not 40K but I am keeping the paint schme generic. Not future tense, its assembled but unpainted being the lazy git I am when it comes to paint (hence part of why I dont do tournaments).

The original undecarriage sucks, there are three stubby feet and no underplate, just flat resin. You have to sort out both yourself, but as I recommend heightening the main carrier bay anyway its an underside conversion job one way or another. The good news is all that lack of detail is concealed, like under a minitures base, so you don't need to do too good a job to get away with it.

Still a flying transport for £12 cant be bad, and it is a very convenient size for 28mm gaming.


If you still turn your nose up at it, it makes a good Soundounk, Camel, Aquilla or Argus depending on your gaming needs.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

If you think I made a form of confession you have misread my point entirely. I choose a smaller transport to tidy up the game, the advantages are that big wings and tail do not get in the way of my own or opponents troops and hands. It is easier to conceal that is true, but honestly I couldnt care less if it was or wasn't. Its also far easier to transport. Convenience is the only in game advantage I seek.

I'm going to spread some full-size Valk cheer with this photo of my two (sadly in this photo, basecoat painted) Valk flying over my Cities of Death terrain.

For competitive play, take 2x Vendetta with Heavy Bolter sponsons and enjoy.

willydstyle wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good luck with fielding those in a tournament. At least you are honest in regards to modeling for hte gaming advantage.

They look like crap too, so I wouldn't even be particularly keen on playing against them in a pickup game.

I used to have a regular opponent who used one of those as a rhino stand-in. The cargo compartment is pretty much exactly the same size as the old rhino, and it really doesn't look any worse than the rhino did.

Granted it would potentially look a little dated in a more modern Marine army, though.