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.

Omegus - no, i just get annoyed with players breaking clear rules in order to benefit themselves

TK - apparently you missed out that the prohibition is on the SKIMMERS movement. Models can walk under skimmers all they want.

You are also 100% unable to back up your assertion on measuring with any rules. Personally I dont care that the model mayt make your deployment tricky - deal with it. Do you finally agree that your houserules are just that, houserules?

There is no ruling it "my way" - there are just the facts: you measure to / from a skimmer, ALL SKIMMERS, to their hull. If their hull is outside of the table, they have either moved illegally OR are destroyed, according to the BRB FAQ.

You cannot counter this, except with a houserule.,

Nos, again, the rules say 'on top of', not 'above'. You cannot place the base ON TOP OF another model but the overhanging fiddly bits like antennas and wings can be in the air space above the model.

-cgmckenzie

CGM - if I place the model such that it lies "on top" of you when viewed from above, you have broken a rule.

In addition - I did not even reference that. I referenced TKs laughable assertion that models couldnt walk under the Valk to get to the base - which requires a complete misreading of the posts in this thread.

I'm guessing the next argument is that wings and fuselage are not part of the hull.

They are according to GW. Anything that is not "decorative" or weapon barrels, and they give examples of this in the BRB, are hull

Arguing that weapon mounts are decorative is likely to get you removed from any tournament very, very quickly, and you will become "TFG" in any local gaming group.

So: to summarise. You measure to the HULL for skimmers, and if any part of the hull is outside of the playing area it is either an illegal move OR, if coming on from reserve the vehicle is destroyed.

These are the rules directly as written, and there is no valid contra. There are only houserules, of which TK has given an example of one. Apparently having a model having a drawback because of how its modelled is cause to change the rules of the game.

So basically my helicopter vendettas are cheating? :/

BRB Pg 71 "skimmers may move over friendly and enemy models but cannot end their move on top of either. Note that a skimmer must be set down on the table and left in place at the end of its move- it cannot be left hovering in mid-air!"

The model is placed on the table, not other models. Other that, any models in its shadow are allowed to be there.

Again, look at the definitions of 'on top of' vs 'above'

-cgmckenzie

And yes, your heli vendettas are cheating.

Well screw it, I don't care, I like how they look and I dare anyone to bitch and moan about it.

Omegus wrote:Well screw it, I don't care, I like how they look and I dare anyone to bitch and moan about it.

It not so much a matter of people bitching and moaning, its more like you not getting opponents for later games. I am sure they look cool and all, but I would have a problem with somebody reducing a landraider to two sets of treads glued together and claiming it as a normal one. You lost alot of model when you removed the wings, and that is all model I can shoot at normally!

-cgmckenzie

In a tournament a confrontational attitude, which your defence can be seen as, could make it more likely people would have an issue with it. As TO i would simply allow shots to / from the missing wings, as if they were there - so you keep the look, but dont gasin the significant advantage it currently has

cgmckenzie wrote:

Omegus wrote:Well screw it, I don't care, I like how they look and I dare anyone to bitch and moan about it.

It not so much a matter of people bitching and moaning, its more like you not getting opponents for later games. I am sure they look cool and all, but I would have a problem with somebody reducing a landraider to two sets of treads glued together and claiming it as a normal one. You lost alot of model when you removed the wings, and that is all model I can shoot at normally!

-cgmckenzie

It's actually not that much of a loss, since there are still small vestigial wings just enough to cover the lascannon sponsons, and I'm still debating whether I want a traditional propeller or cannibalize the ones from the Scorpion Gunship (http://www.wildcataerospace.com/2001aspaceodyssey/avatar-scorpion-gunship.jpg). If I go with the latter option, it'll actually be bigger than the original model. Hell, I may just do that so whenever I lose I can just decry my opponent for "abusing" TLOS against my non-standard models. I'll never lose a game again, since the moral victory is automatically mine if they ever target one of my birds.

And for whatever it's worth, I don't play in 40K (or fantasy) tournaments. GW couldn't make a tournament-balanced ruleset if their lives depended on it, and all the inconsistencies and goofy crap drives people to too much nerd-rage (see this thread for example). It's simply not an enjoyable experience.

Omegus wrote:Well screw it, I don't care, I like how they look and I dare anyone to bitch and moan about it.

The rule of cool tends to trump most rules. If you're using awesome looking helicopters, no one will complain. At the same time, you should use them as if they were "real" vendettas though, and not do anything that the real thing can't do - like moving 6" onto the board and shoot everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Omegus wrote:GW couldn't make a tournament-balanced ruleset if their lives depended on it, and all the inconsistencies and goofy crap drives people to too much nerd-rage (see this thread for example).

Quoted for truth.

Actually I have yet to see any nerd rage in an actual tournament - theyre generally very well humoured events.

The main thing with non-standard models is to be upfront - before every game mention that you have modelled these to look cool, and if anyone has an issue then of course you will assume it to be the same shape / size as a standard one. Then, most likely, people wont bother.

Its when people think youre underhanded that they have problems. Normally the rule of cool wins out.

Omegus wrote:

black-rabbit wrote:The way my local gaming circle plays it, we consider that if the whole base is on the table, the whole model is on the table.

Same here, it's the only thing that makes sense.

You do the same for all the other skimmers?

Yes, even though their bases are smaller and it "benefits" them even more (honestly, the "edge" gained from this is so miniscule, if someone truly objected I would just play it however they wanted, it's not worth the effort to argue... not to mention that whatever advantage is gained is easily countered by the much greater risk of tipping your expensive model onto the floor).

I also don't make an issue when people use old terminators with the small bases, either.

Omegus wrote: (honestly, the "edge" gained from this is so miniscule,

If it makes so little difference then why bother with the house rule?

Omegus wrote:I also don't make an issue when people use old terminators with the small bases, either.

That would be perfectly legal - you use the base supplied.

Because we never considered the alternative, and what you call a houserule is how we unanimously interpreted the rules. I'll bring it up next game night, but I don't think anyone will care.

cgmckenzie wrote:And yes, your heli vendettas are cheating.

If his opponent has no problem with him using them, it's not cheating.

And since his opponent's agreement is pretty much required for the game to happen in the first place, it's unlikely to ever be classed as 'cheating'...

Cheating would require misleading the opponent in some way.

Omegus wrote:Because we never considered the alternative, and what you call a houserule is how we unanimously interpreted the rules. I'll bring it up next game night, but I don't think anyone will care.

You unanimously ignored the first part of the skimmer rules, which tells you to ignore the base for pretty much everything?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Omegus wrote:Because we never considered the alternative, and what you call a houserule is how we unanimously interpreted the rules. I'll bring it up next game night, but I don't think anyone will care.

You unanimously ignored the first part of the skimmer rules, which tells you to ignore the base for pretty much everything?

Would you make an opponent take a dangerous terrain check if part of the tail fin was over difficult terrain/area terrain?

I would, yeah. It's part of the rules, as stupid as it may be. If you want to play some other form, fine but that makes it your house rules.

-cgmckenzie

Tomb King wrote:Would you make an opponent take a dangerous terrain check if part of the tail fin was over difficult terrain/area terrain?

No, because that's stupid. Fluid gameplay is far more important than some dogmatic adherence to GW's messy rules. Again, if I played against someone that insisted on it, I'd adjust my movement not to have the part of the tail fin over the terrain and keep it in mind for the rest of the game. If they insisted that I roll anyway, I'd probably just find another opponent who is less of a prick.

I have played competively for well over a year and have played my IG several times and I have never had a person ask once for that. It has always been the base that defined if something was in DT or not.

This is an example of 24/7 RAW and GW failing simultaneously.

I've always played the whole Valk/Vend/Stormraven model as being measured (for movement, terrain, etc.) for all purposes except the ones explicitly excepted in their rules.

It's obvious to anyone who's ever played Eldar. Falcons and Wave Serpents are also much larger than their bases. The bases have always been irrelevant for measurement.

Tomb King wrote:I have played competively for well over a year and have played my IG several times and I have never had a person ask once for that. It has always been the base that defined if something was in DT or not.

A few tournaments have decided to change the rules.

Doesnt alter those being the actual rules, however, and I would ask you to not park your vehicle in terrain if you dont want to take a terrain test, and to not hang it off the table so, when my blast weapons hit your hull they dont auto miss because you have put parts of your hull over the edge of the table.

See, in that case, if the template ended over a part of the model, I would consider it a hit whether that wing or or whatever is on the board or not.

Except the rules are quite clear that a blast marker that has it's hole scatter off table is a complete miss. Of course they're also quite clear that the hull of a vehicle has to be on table, so either the piece off table wasn't hull and wouldn't have counted as a hit anyway or it is hull and so whoever put it there is cheating or his opponent has agreed to house-rule it.

Omegus wrote:See, in that case, if the template ended over a part of the model, I would consider it a hit whether that wing or or whatever is on the board or not.

Except that isnt what the rules say

And was my point, really - arbitrarily changing one rule (you measure to vehicles by default, with very limited exceptions) has an impact elsewhere. It means you also have an absurd situation with Vendettas firing a weapon from off the board (wing lascannon) but a shot landing there from a blast weapon would auto miss.

If TK et als group wants to play it thaty way with a Houserule, then fine - however claiming its the actual rules, when you have a clear and entirely unambiguous rule stating otherwise? Not going to fly.

See this is why GW needs to come up with some new rules for their "flyer" models. Comparing the old eldar skimmers and Vendetta's isn't a good comparison, their bases, foot print, and stance on the board are entirely different.

Generally you should just ask the TO before hand how they want to play it and outline that to your opponents before each game if you're playing in a tournament.