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.

It is bigger than 6" in all dimensions? Damn that's wide =\

daedalus wrote:At the risk of playing devil's advocate, is there anything denying checking range/LOS for something that's not positioned directly above part of the tabletop?

The rule denying checking range and LOS is the fact that nothing can be outside the play area, so there's no way you have a legal target.

Augustus wrote:That's good, because not being able to float on because of a max move of 6 inches would be absurd.

Deepstrike. And 14/14/14 immune to lance and melta and just about everything in the known universe is absurd. Just sayin'

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Baneblade IS a legal 40k model - it's in IA1 and takes a complete force org.

IA1 = Codex? Wait, this is getting to be an entirely different (and over-done) discussion. IA wasn't put out by GW. While the legality of FW models and rules can be debated, you can easily assume that GW rules and FAQs didn't intend to encompass everything FW might ever make up. If you're playing with FW rules, you're playing with houserules and just asking for gaps in the system. This becomes your own problem to solve.

I don't have the BRB handy but i thought for sure there was a part about models that would otherwise not be able to move on to the table due to their size, instead move the minimum distance to clear the table edge.

I.E.
Lets assume a model is 8'' in the shortest dimension. If a player walks on with it, it must move a minimum of 8''. If its max movement somehow is only 6'' it is instead moved the full 8''. This does not allow HUGE vehicles to move at combat speed in order to fire a full barrage, but instead accommodates the random vehicle that otherwise would not be able to be fielded in DOW and like missions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, or please provide the BRB verbiage if i'm not entirely off my rocker.

The rule you're thinking of says that if a unit has a special rule which would require it to move in a specific direction (Rage, for example) or not move at all, thus preventing it from getting onto the table, that rule is ignored the turn it arrives from reserve. Page 94.

Sadly, no help to the Baneblade. If I were playing in a game with a Baneblade, my suggested houserule would be to move it completely onto the table, but on that turn, measure from its guns, etc. as if they were however much farther back as they would have been if it had only moved 6".

Steelmage99 wrote:
Just like in the "language" of math two negatives added together equals a positive, as opposed to the "language" of real life where two wrongs does not make a right.

In math two negatives added together forms a more negative number, because you're adding an absence to an absence... -2 + -2 = -4


On topic: honestly, when it comes to a skimmer, it should be allowed to use its base to determine whether or not it's on the table or not, but that's not how the rules go. However, you can get a Valkyrie/Vendetta onto the table at combat speed using creative angling and a suitably inaccurate measurement of 6"...

Vaguely Related: I assume the same goes for terrain for skimmers? If the hull is over DT it takes a dangerous terrain test, even if neither the hull nor the base is actually touching it?

ElCheezus - FW is owned by Citadel miniatures and GW. the clue is on the outside of the book and the inside front covers which deal with playing the game within 40k.

axeman1n wrote:Landraiders can still shoot the turn they arrive thanks to the PotMS. Valks can too because they are Fast. The baneblade, strickly speaking, is not a legal 40k model so you need not worry about how it makes it on the table.

Why is a Baneblade not a 40k legal model? GW even does a kit for it now, its not FW exclusive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:MARINE landraiders can. Chaos dont get PotMS, not anymore.

The Baneblade IS a legal 40k model - it's in IA1 and takes a complete force org.

Chaos do not get PotMS, but they do get daemonic possession or similar.

Incorrect. That was 3.5

Chaos landraiders have NO PotMS or equivalent, not any longer. Daemonic possesion now lowers your BS and lets you ignore stunned and shaken results. Nothing else

You may not play a Baneblade in a standard game of 40k. You can play it in spearhead games, Apocalypse games, or friendly games agreed upon by your opponent. If you wanted to go to a sanctioned Grand Tournament, or Rogue trader tournament, you could not field a Baneblade.
I love how everyone just ignores this fact.

And why cant you field those units?

Because they are not within the list of allowed codexes. No other reason.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ElCheezus - FW is owned by Citadel miniatures and GW. the clue is on the outside of the book and the inside front covers which deal with playing the game within 40k.

Just because the companies are related doesn't mean GW rules take FW rules into account. Say two brothers are both politicians. Does one's campaign promises apply to the other? (This is deep water for "family" metaphors) FW can do what they want, basically, and GW's rules don't apply to them. If GW wrote the rule about having to be on the table thinking to themselves "well, we need to make sure we don't make a model that breaks this," there would be no way for FW to know that was a requirement.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:On topic: honestly, when it comes to a skimmer, it should be allowed to use its base to determine whether or not it's on the table or not, but that's not how the rules go. However, you can get a Valkyrie/Vendetta onto the table at combat speed using creative angling and a suitably inaccurate measurement of 6"...

Vaguely Related: I assume the same goes for terrain for skimmers? If the hull is over DT it takes a dangerous terrain test, even if neither the hull nor the base is actually touching it?

I'm pretty sure you can't get a Valk on the board with 6" of movement, but that depends on how freely you interpret your ability to turn the vehicle. Oh, I now see your phrase of "suitably inaccurate measurement." Nevermind, cheat away. I'd like to point out that with a 45 degree front arc, you're probably not going to be able to fire at what you want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And why cant you field those units?

Because they are not within the list of allowed codexes. No other reason.

Yes, because GW said so. And GW makes the rules. It sounds like these things go hand-in-hand.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Baneblade IS a legal 40k model

Yes, and my beer bottle is a legal 40k model, as long as I say it counts as my drop pod. It's perfectly legal - if my opponent allows it. Same applies to FW models. You have have the understanding and allowance that you aren't using Big Brother GW's models, so some issues might arise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:Why is a Baneblade not a 40k legal model? GW even does a kit for it now, its not FW exclusive.

It's not in any of the Codices, which means it's used in the "expansions." Apoc, Spearheat, etc. . . These are all separate rulesets based on the 40k BRB. There are cases where conflicts arise, and since GW isn't hot at defining rules, you have to houserule solutions. Basically, the Baneblade doesn't need to be part of this rules discussion because it's only part of game types that already have huge problems with the basic rules. It's like getting angry at a foreign word for not following English pronunciation. It's not English, so of course there are differences.

ElCheezus - you need your opponents permission to play *any* game. Any game at all

This make any model opponents permission only. So that would make your point moot.

We just allow baneblades to move 8 or 9" on their first turn, whatever gets them on the board. Since they A) don't get a reduction in firepower for moving their maximum speed B) are coming from reserves, so they're way in the back and C) will only be advancing 6" from then on, there's really no fear of them reaching you. Plus those chassis generally have all long-range weapons so that extra 2-3" will rarely matter.

As far as landraiders go, technically there's no requirement for our tanks to drive the direction their tracks face. Since you can turn any number of times during your movement, just drive the landraider on sideways the full 6", or at an angle. All your armor values are the same, so what's it matter what direction you face?

/yawn stale argument.

If a game store in a new town has a 40k night, you take your models and can reasonably expect a game. However, you don't know the people there, or what type of games they play. If you take a Codex army, you can be 98% sure that people will play against you. However, if you take any expansion or FW-based army, there's a decent possibility that people won't want to play.

Why? Because FW and other things are in an entirely different metagame. When people build "all-comers" lists, they know what to expect from the Codecies we have. But FW stuff is a lot more out there, so it's an entirely different beast to consider when you're making your list.

Yes, you *always* need your opponent's permission to play. But the core of this argument is that there are certain things you can *expect*, and other things that you want to check on, first.

My game store doesn't usually play with FW rules or models. If you bring some in, you'll probably find someone who will play you. But plopping down a FW army and *expecting* everyone there to be OK with it would be absurd.

which is why building that strawman argument is also absurd.

Noone said anyone would "expect" someone to be ok with it.

ElCheezus wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:On topic: honestly, when it comes to a skimmer, it should be allowed to use its base to determine whether or not it's on the table or not, but that's not how the rules go. However, you can get a Valkyrie/Vendetta onto the table at combat speed using creative angling and a suitably inaccurate measurement of 6"...

Vaguely Related: I assume the same goes for terrain for skimmers? If the hull is over DT it takes a dangerous terrain test, even if neither the hull nor the base is actually touching it?

I'm pretty sure you can't get a Valk on the board with 6" of movement, but that depends on how freely you interpret your ability to turn the vehicle. Oh, I now see your phrase of "suitably inaccurate measurement." Nevermind, cheat away. I'd like to point out that with a 45 degree front arc, you're probably not going to be able to fire at what you want.

That was a joke, though it takes an error of less than half an inch to make it work, less if you ignore the wingtips and the tip of the tail (assuming Vassal 40K has the dimensions right, since I don't have the actual model to test it with)...

I think, although it's not a end all be all situation, the INAT FAQ answers this all in an extremely easy fashion.. RAW all models must move on the board completely and totally, if they physically can. This may force models to move at cruising speed. If a model is too large, the necessary amount can overhang the back of the table, but things scattering onto the overhang area still counts as a hit on the tank. The best argument I can come up with is if a valk sits in corner, i am losing out on being able to target over 33% of your model, give me another example where this is legal..?

I think a lot of ig players get very defensive about it because it seems "unfair" when the model is uber good as it is, I personally laugh because I always say, come on now none of my falcon can hang off the board let's all play by the same rules if I hung my falcon off so you can't get rear armor shots is that ok?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Incorrect. That was 3.5

Chaos landraiders have NO PotMS or equivalent, not any longer. Daemonic possesion now lowers your BS and lets you ignore stunned and shaken results. Nothing else

My bad...

axeman1n wrote:You may not play a Baneblade in a standard game of 40k. You can play it in spearhead games, Apocalypse games, or friendly games agreed upon by your opponent. If you wanted to go to a sanctioned Grand Tournament, or Rogue trader tournament, you could not field a Baneblade.
I love how everyone just ignores this fact.

Shame. Such an awesome model...

nosferatu1001 wrote:And why cant you field those units?

Because they are not within the list of allowed codexes. No other reason.

IA is not allowed in sanctioned tourneys?

ElCheezus wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Why is a Baneblade not a 40k legal model? GW even does a kit for it now, its not FW exclusive.

It's not in any of the Codices, which means it's used in the "expansions." Apoc, Spearheat, etc. . . These are all separate rulesets based on the 40k BRB. There are cases where conflicts arise, and since GW isn't hot at defining rules, you have to houserule solutions. Basically, the Baneblade doesn't need to be part of this rules discussion because it's only part of game types that already have huge problems with the basic rules. It's like getting angry at a foreign word for not following English pronunciation. It's not English, so of course there are differences.

Thanks for clarifying.

Avatar - there is no one , single consistent tournament ruleset, however *most* tournaments do not allow non-codex (apart from the night spinner, but that is because it was "added to" the codex by GW) units / army lists to take part.

Functionally, apart from super heavies, 90% of FW units are a bad buy, points wise. They are normally over costed, under powered or both. There are some notable exceptions (lucius pattern drop pod, deathwind drop pods, hades breaching drill) however these are the vast vast minority. Unfortunately there is a prevailing misconception that FW IS overpowered, despite that being the exact opposite of reality, whcih causes a lot of people not to want to play them. THere is also the fear of the unknown factor - some people only want to play something theyve seen before, and a lot of people havent seen FW stuff.

Just.. for the record.

Forgeworld is WHOLLY owned by GW. Not an affiliate, not a contractor, no "family", not nothing. It is 100% Games Workshop.

But, agreed, IA books are "ask before use".

Just because a company is owned by another does not make what they do the same.

"Citadel Miniatures"

Have yo not noticed that on the IA books? Or the note inside telling you how to use the books in games of 40k?

DakkaDakka wrote:

It is as useful as any player-created reference. Unofficial, but handy in some cases because it explains some rules (particularly with LOS diagrams) better than GW does. It does make some changes, though, so it's best used with caution.

As long as people clearly indicate when they are talking about INAT, vs official rules, it's fine to use it for comparison or reference.

I did not see anything mentioned here, but what about models with Slow and Purposeful?

Example: Tau Broadsides with ASS (Advanced Stabilization System). You roll a 1 for Slow and Purposeful movement, thus have ~1" of the model hanging off.

Interestingly enough I think that:

Mannahnin wrote:...if a unit has a special rule which would require it to move in a specific direction (Rage, for example) or not move at all, thus preventing it from getting onto the table, that rule is ignored the turn it arrives from reserve...

*NOTE*: I think it says ...or stops it's movement..." not "...or not move at all...".

I think both RAW and RAI shows to say Slow and Purposeful movement "stops" its movement, thus preventing it to get onto the table, thus allows said unit to ignore the rule coming from reserve. Which case, I would either ignore Slow and Purposeful or ignore ASS but if you ignore ASS, Broadsides would not be able to fire and that is one of the main reasons to take ASS so Dawn of War does not remove your Railgun shots from them.

Seriously - should the Valkyrie get to be mounted on a lower base, as it's gamey that it cant get cover saves so easily?

Zyllos - you think incorrectly, Mann is correct. If you roll S&P and dont make it on, then you are destroyed.

Zyllos- I have gone over that argument, and I agree that it is RAI, though RAW I think it falls a little short. Thankfully, I have not yet encountered a situation in an actual game where I or my opponent stuck to the RAW on this one. Because it would be lame.