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.

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:You can't do that...

Because the rulebook says you're not allowed to remove the model from it's flight stand unless you are told to. Like when it's immobilized or wrecked.

The rulebook also says that you have to glue the model to its base. Unless you are snapping off the stick, you didn't glue it, so it's not a legal model.

RaW, skimmers are never removed from their bases when immobile.

@kanelom: You cannot remove it from it's base at any point during the game.

People are Lenent on the Valk because it wont fit into any case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:You can't do that...

Because the rulebook says you're not allowed to remove the model from it's flight stand unless you are told to. Like when it's immobilized or wrecked.

The rulebook also says that you have to glue the model to its base. Unless you are snapping off the stick, you didn't glue it, so it's not a legal model.

RaW, skimmers are never removed from their bases when immobile.

@kanelom: You cannot remove it from it's base at any point during the game.

Essentially, how most sane people would play it (RAI, anyone?) is: You may not modify any model while it is in play.

Ok, I beg a cease fire, I give up. Looked at the "Errata" for Imperial Guard and found this:

Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.

A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

Base is official my contention was that it was not, you have to **cough** glue the base on as supplied for the model's legal use.
I can now proceed to other things and not anger GWAR further...

Talizvar wrote: The cross shaped plug for the flying stand is an optional item to glue on.

Talizvar wrote:

Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.

A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

So the base is too high to be within 2", yet the stand is not part of the base?


Also, that was from the FAQ, not the errata.

Also, that was from the FAQ, not the errata.

Before anyone asks, yes, there is a difference.
And no, don't bring it up.
Continue.

I agree that once a height has been determined for your base (Tau bases have various heights to choose from, from 1" to 2 1/2") you cannot change that value. But the idea that you HAVE to glue that base to your model for it to be legal is too much....I see people quoting pg 3 of the BRB that the models must be glued to the base...there are also quotes from small rule book page 71 "If a skimmer is immobilized or wrecked, its base is removed, if possible". There is an obvious discrepency/conflict in the rules concerning this.... --How could a wrecked skimmer stay in the air?

Is there anyone here that would not allow another player to use his skimmers if the models were not glued to the base?

No, but that wasnt the point (also, it is only "if possible" - which it never is....); plus the immobilised could simply be "im floating in the air, al forward motive power gone"

How could a wrecked skimmer stay in the air?

Because the rulebook says it does. It's a ruleset and not about realism.

Is there anyone here that would not allow another player to use his skimmers if the models were not glued to the base?

Again, like Nos said, it's not the point. Rules as written will be different to Rules as Played, but Rules are Rules, how they are followed are really up to you and your gaming group wrt the 'stuff that makes no sense' wrt to your point of view.

Dogface 76 wrote:
Is there anyone here that would not allow another player to use his skimmers if the models were not glued to the base?

If he was doing something 'fishy' with them like trying to change the base or height mid-game for advantage, I would invoke the fact he is using 'non standard bases' and 'not following the rules' as a way to require opponents permission for the game to continue, which I would then refuse to give as long as he attempted to meddle with the base not attached to the skimmer. I do frequently see people who try to play with the skimmer *NOT* on a base for a whole game mid-tourney when they feel the need to hide from shooting for a particular game. I do not agree to that and would require his models be elevated to the level of the flying base for all LOS purposes. While it isn't mid-game, I do feel it does impact back-to-back tourney games.

If you want your skimmer to be legal, it must use the exact base it came with and be glued to it. Anything else requires opponents permission.

How could a wrecked skimmer stay in the air?

By being damaged badly enough to be unable to take any further part in the battle, but still having functional anti-grav generators...


On the original question: The answer to the whole 'can you change a skimmer's height' thing is far easier than the whole silly discussion on gluing models to their bases. You can't change the skimmer's height during the game simply because the rules never say that you can.

The rule quoted about placing the skimmer on the table at the end of its movement is not telling you to remove the base. You pick the skimmer up, move it, and then place it back on the table, base and all. All that rule is saying is that the skimmer has to finish its movement actually placed on the table... you can't count it as hovering up above the terrain.

@ Insaniak and Talizvar, Thanks! my argument originally was this:
Please note Base implies flying stand.
Because the base is ignored for flyers in everything but assaults, and because skimmers needn't be glued, then why for the movement phase couldnt the Vendetta (photos in my gallery) just go from high flying stand mode to on base mode. Because the base is IGNORED for everything but assault, thus I can ignore it for movement.

I heard the landing pads in planetstrike games let it go this anyway?

And Like it has been said the Tau have landing gear? And landing gear is shown on my Vendetta? I KNOW i know two different armies..
But still, the idea behind it seems solid. I see eldar skimmers sort of like awesome Naboo tanks, they can go higher but they can't fly.. differentiating them from what SHOULD be a flyer = Valk/Vend

I guess this is an oversight/limitation of the 40k rules?
Lack of clarification for 3d movement values..

But thanks again, i will adhere to games workshop FAQ wisdom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talizvar wrote:Ok, I beg a cease fire, I give up. Looked at the "Errata" for Imperial Guard and found this:

Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.

A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

Base is official my contention was that it was not, you have to **cough** glue the base on as supplied for the model's legal use.
I can now proceed to other things and not anger GWAR further...

haha to the last quip..
I think GW should have modeled this with rappel ropes, or rope ladders like when you see spec ops zip down or a few guys scramble up rickety ladders.

"Citadel miniatures are NORMALLY supplied with a plastic base. IF SO, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game"

So what I'd say to you gwar is really simple, my (fill in skimmer name here) did not come with a base.

DONE, nothing you can do. BOOYA!




No one in their right mind i gonna glue a valk on its stand. Also, floating wrecks are lame.

Crablezworth wrote:DONE, nothing you can do. BOOYA!

Sure I can. I can say that you are most likely lying and not play you as you are now modelling for advantage.

Crablezworth wrote:"Citadel miniatures are NORMALLY supplied with a plastic base. IF SO, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game"

So what I'd say to you gwar is really simple, my (fill in skimmer name here) did not come with a base.

DONE, nothing you can do. BOOYA!

TFG, eh? i don't think 40k (or interactions with non-dysfunctional people) is for you. I'd take up trying to be the biggest spanker in (fill in country of residence here)...
although it may seem like a contradiction, the op posted a question he wanted answered, i don't think he was looking for a dakka arguement. Talizvar ended the arguement, don't start another with Gwar!

Edit: beaten to the punch...

Why am I a spanker?

I'm simply making the point that you can be uncompromising with rules as written to absurd levels.

Why would GW include a section regarding the removal of flight bases in the event of immobilization if they are so strict about a tiny paragraph on page 3 that is rife for abuse because of the way it is worded?


Notice gwar said he wouldn't play me because he would assume I was lying (being that frackin guy as it were)... not that I was wrong...

Crablezworth wrote:Notice gwar said he wouldn't play me because he would assume I was lying (being that frackin guy as it were)... not that I was wrong...

You are wrong, because you are lying. Models without a base do not have to be glued.

A Valkyrie comes with a base. To say "It didn't come with a base" is a lie because:
A) You would have returned it for being a Faulty Product
B) The fact that you JUST SO HAPPENED to get the ONE Valkyrie kit with no base... well, I'll leave it there.

My valkyrie didn't come with a flying stand in the box. Prove me wrong.

I am in total agreement with Gwar and the results of the poll also support his stance on this attempt to model for in game advantage.

At the OP - You seem quite adamant in regards to your position, so go ahead as no one here is going to come out to your LGS, kick down the door and take away your shorter bases you intend to use for gaming advantage. I think you'll find that based upon the results of the poll and the overall response here that you are going to have a hard time getting in a game once people see what you are all about. It's a classic TFG d*ck move to be completely honest and I am surprised you even posted about it here as you have little support.

G

Crablezworth wrote:My valkyrie didn't come with a flying stand in the box. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to. I just won't play you, as I think (Read:Know) you are modelling for advantage.

Even if I brought a valk with a stand that wasn't glued on to a game you seemingly wouldn't play me.... and somehow I'm that frackin guy...

If I purchased the forgeworld manticore instead of the gw one, would I be buying for advantage?

kanelom wrote:Because the base is ignored for flyers in everything but assaults, and because skimmers needn't be glued, then why for the movement phase couldnt the Vendetta (photos in my gallery) just go from high flying stand mode to on base mode. Because the base is IGNORED for everything but assault, thus I can ignore it for movement.

The skimmer's base is ignored for the purposes of measuring distances, as you measure distances to and from the model's hull.

That doesn't even remotely mean 'you are free to remove the flight stem if you wish'...

And Like it has been said the Tau have landing gear? And landing gear is shown on my Vendetta? I KNOW i know two different armies..

Not just two different armies, but two different armies, one of which has rules for landing gear, and the other does not.


The one without landing gear rules therefore can not use landing gear. That would defy the point of one specific army having it as a special rule.

Black Blow Fly wrote:I am in total agreement with Gwar and the results of the poll also support his stance on this attempt to model for in game advantage.

At the OP - You seem quite adamant in regards to your position, so go ahead as no one here is going to come out to your LGS, kick down the door and take away your shorter bases you intend to use for gaming advantage. I think you'll find that based upon the results of the poll and the overall response here that you are going to have a hard time getting in a game once people see what you are all about. It's a classic TFG d*ck move to be completely honest and I am surprised you even posted about it here as you have little support.

G

Mate, thats going a bit far.
How is it a TFG move? If I can't shoot you, you can't shoot me. Im not modelling a ruin onto the base at a ridiculous height just so i can be permanently obscured, it works both ways. If It's up its up if it's down its down you can do it in planetstrike on a landing pad so why can't it just be done? I think i even stated in that last post of mine I'd accepted the RAW in the GW FAQ and was going to abide by it.
You obviously have some chip on your shoulder about MfA, so much so that you're clearly seeing it when its not there.. how is it an absolute advantage to be able to change heights? High means great LoS TO and from the model, low is the opposite.
You haven't read this post clearly enough because the reason i posted it here is to see what sort of support there was, it was a question. So your surprise is ignorance more than anything.

So to be completely honest im surprised you're such a mean spirited glass-half-empty person. Nothing wrong with think how to interpret RaW, the post has been answered and settled.

kanelom wrote: you can do it in planetstrike on a landing pad so why can't it just be done?

That would come into the same territory as wanting to do it because Tau have rules for it.

One particular situation having a special rule that allows something does not make it something that you can do all of the time. Again, that would defy the point of having a special rule for it...

So to be completely honest im surprised you're such a mean spirited glass-half-empty person.

You'll also be surprised by a holiday from the forum if you continue making personal attacks. Stick to the argument, not the poster. That goes for both 'sides' of the discussion.

and because my words were written in full and not just shortened to TFG, that makes mine a personal attack. Nice. This thread has been answered, so please, do your job as a MOD and close it on my behalf. I would if i could, if only to stop senseless arguing over RaW, when as i've said in the last 2 posts..

This Question Has Been Answered.

Thank You to Talizvar for your relevant, constructive and exceedingly helpful response, in answering the question at the top of this page. If there were a President position in Dakka i'd vote for your party.

As a matter of complaint to the MOD, why did such a simple question need to become an idealogical battleground, i just presented my interpretation, and by the 2nd 3rd post had already been shown my error and had the Original Question answered. By continuing to show the rules from which i had taken my original PoV I was not thusly implying that I was still correct, just explaining how I arrived at my question.
Also the question is regarding a Friendly at a mates place. Even if I did try this (which i wont now that it has been cleared up) at my FLGS (of which there is none within 1200km), it'd be opponents permission. And the same would have to apply to all their skimmers to be fair.

Stop here please!

kanelom wrote:and because my words were written in full and not just shortened to TFG, that makes mine a personal attack.

The reason that I referred to your post as a personal attack was that it was a personal attack. The TFG comment was referring to it being a TFG thing to do, not aimed at you directly.

Insulting someone directly and commenting that a particular action would be ill-received are two very different things.

As a matter of complaint to the MOD, why did such a simple question need to become an idealogical battleground, i just presented my interpretation, and by the 2nd 3rd post had already been shown my error and had the Original Question answered. By continuing to show the rules from which i had taken my original PoV I was not thusly implying that I was still correct, just explaining how I arrived at my question.

That's the problem, though. Once it was explained to you why your initial idea was incorrect, continuing to argue for it makes it look like you are not accepting that it is incorrect. So people will continue to argue against it.


If you're actually done with a discussion, the best way to get out of it is to just stop posting in it...