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.

This is all I was arguing really in the other thread. Models can go under the wings just fine but terrain cannot haha, apparently somewhere along the line that rock down there jumped up and hit the pilot causing him to immobolize the vehicle lol. Then if models were under the wings they get smashed.

This is why I liked 3rd ed where Skimmers (pre flyiers) had the option to be either above the terrain and give LOS to everyone, or in the terrain, and take test and not provide LOS.

Tk, I totally understand where you are coming from there; it makes sense that if the terrain is smacking the wing then my guardsman's helmet will too. Alas, it is not written that way in the book, allowing for you to have models under the wings and such without any ill effects like getting sucked through a jet turbine.

The simplest way to answer this whole problem is as follows:
that everything that isn't decorative is hull

if any hull if over terrain, it must take a terrain test

if the base is flat on the playing surface, the area under the wings allow for movement of troops.

The rules are silly and arbitrary, clearly being written for things like land speeders and tau hover tanks, but they are all we have until GW brings out flyers. Until then, just deal with the limitations of the rules OR use a different unit that is unambiguous.

FOOTSLOGGERS...AWAY!!!!!!

-cgmckenzie

If the wings count as part of the hull, then I can abuse my vendetta to contest objectives.

SonsofVulkan wrote:If the wings count as part of the hull, then I can abuse my vendetta to contest objectives.

No, because you measure objective contesting to the base. That is specifically stated in the FAQ.

-cgmckenzie

maaksel wrote:FOR CLARITY, THE BELOW QUOTED SECTION IS A HOUSE RULE FOR THE GW 2011 THRONE OF SKULLS TOURNAMENT IN LAS VEGAS. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RULE ANYWHERE ELSE.

Throne of Skulls 2011 US clarifications wrote:How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...e=true&start=2

Good stuff.

SonsofVulkan wrote:If the wings count as part of the hull, then I can abuse my vendetta to contest objectives.

Read the FAQ

maaksel wrote:FOR CLARITY, THE BELOW QUOTED SECTION IS A HOUSE RULE FOR THE GW 2011 THRONE OF SKULLS TOURNAMENT IN LAS VEGAS. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RULE ANYWHERE ELSE.

Throne of Skulls 2011 US clarifications wrote:How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...e=true&start=2

Sold. If it's good enough for GW's tournament it's good enough for me. Now if they would only add it to the Rulebook FAQ we could all go home happy.

That makes me happy, seeing as how I am getting a pair of vendettas this week!!

Not how RAW have it working, but if GW says to do it this way when they are judging, then by god lets do it that way. Hopefully the update for the FAQ comes along soon to make it doctrine.

-cgmckenzie

ps-yes, I know this still isn't RAW legal until the come out with flyers, and frankly don't care. We all now know what it is RAW but this makes more sense.

"GW" doesn't say to do it that way. One dude, the head rules judge for ONE tournament, says he's ruling it that way at that single event.

If GW wants to change the rules to work that way, they can add it to the FAQ.

Mannahnin wrote:"GW" doesn't say to do it that way. One dude, the head rules judge for ONE tournament, says he's ruling it that way at that single event.

If GW wants to change the rules to work that way, they can add it to the FAQ.

It's a GW tourney(a rather large one I think but I may be wrong) and therefor sets a precedent for future official events to rule similarly. It's a step towards an official FAQ change but still not quite there. Strictly following RAW, the judge is wrong but I highly doubt GW will raise a stink about it.

Who knows, when the Summer of Fliers finally happens, this entire thing might be a moot point.

-cgmckenzie

And if it was totally counter to GW Studio's intent/plans they'd tell him not to do it that way. Like I said, if it's good enough for their tournament it's good enough for me to play everyday games.

Besides, it so damned much more reasonable than having to take a test because the wing tip of my orbit capable flyer is just slightly over a barbed wire fence. The only roll of 1 that ever made me consider quitting a game on turn 1. But my opponent was such a smug twerp about it I had to stick it out and table his blue, upside down U covered, behind.

No, if the studio gave a damn about a single event they might ask him not to, however they have no official rules presence.

It gives absolutely no indication whatsoever how the studio will rule. None

Sanguinary Dan wrote:And if it was totally counter to GW Studio's intent/plans they'd tell him not to do it that way. Like I said, if it's good enough for their tournament it's good enough for me to play everyday games.

That, I can tell you from experience is VERY false. The design team typically does not involve themselves with any FAQs the event department puts out for their grand tournaments. There have been many, many, many cases where rulings in a GW GT FAQ have been completely the opposite to what the official ruling turns out to be in the real studio FAQ.

Besides, the studio has ruled on how to play the Vendetta/Valkyrie and that is ONLY in the case of embarking/disembarking and capturing objectives are ranges measured from the base. In all other cases range is measured to/from the vehicle's hull, which is completely counter to what the events department has ruled.

But again, that still doesn't definitely prove that a Valkyrie/Vendetta whose wings are OVER terrain counts as being IN/ON the terrain. That fully rests on how you interpret the concept of what it means to be in or on a piece of terrain as opposed to over it.

yakface wrote:

Sanguinary Dan wrote:And if it was totally counter to GW Studio's intent/plans they'd tell him not to do it that way. Like I said, if it's good enough for their tournament it's good enough for me to play everyday games.

That, I can tell you from experience is VERY false. The design team typically does not involve themselves with any FAQs the event department puts out for their grand tournaments. There have been many, many, many cases where rulings in a GW GT FAQ have been completely the opposite to what the official ruling turns out to be in the real studio FAQ.

Exactly right. The UK GT used to have a whole house rules document above and beyond the FAQ, and which was often contradicted later by the official FAQ rulings on various matters.

As Yak said, the studio design guys genuinely don't pay attention to or take part in the house rulings/clarifications even for GW tournaments.

yakface wrote:[Besides, the studio has ruled on how to play the Vendetta/Valkyrie and that is ONLY in the case of embarking/disembarking and capturing objectives are ranges measured from the base. In all other cases range is measured to/from the vehicle's hull, which is completely counter to what the events department has ruled.

But again, that still doesn't definitely prove that a Valkyrie/Vendetta whose wings are OVER terrain counts as being IN/ON the terrain. That fully rests on how you interpret the concept of what it means to be in or on a piece of terrain as opposed to over it.

True enough. I guess, speaking as someone who played Eldar primarily for some years, and played against Tau and Eldar for a decade or more, I don't see any particular reason for Valks/Vends/SRs to get a more generous ruling than Falcons and Wave Serpents, Pirhanas and Devilfish and Hammerheads, etc. In all of these cases the skimmer's base can MUCH more easily fit into various spaces/around terrain than the full model can.

If GW wants to rule that V/V/SRs just use the base for Difficult Terrain, then I would hope all skimmers would get the same ruling, not just Imperial players.

Mannahnin wrote:If GW wants to rule that V/V/SRs just use the base for Difficult Terrain, then I would hope all skimmers would get the same ruling, not just Imperial players.

I think that's perfectly reasonable. As long as they put all those other Skimmers on the same height flying base.

The 'fliers' operate just like skimmers until rules stating otherwise are enacted. Rumor mill being what it is, there is a possibility of this happening in a month or so, but take that with a grain of salt.

The tourney ruling isn't a definitive sign that this is how they will rule in the future, but it does provide some possible precedent for what ever rule they decide to use. It is also entirely possible that they are using the tourney to play test how various aspects of upcoming rule changes might work. Or that the TO will never be allowed to make rule decisions again...

-cgmckenzie

Matters now, Just received back word from the TO of the GT I am attending. "For the Valk/Vend question, use the base (so no stupid difficult terrain checks, and yes it can hang off the table a little)"

As long as I can play it both locally and in the GT's as such than i could really care less how some people interpret it.

Rivers often count as dangerous or difficult terrain. Seems kind of odd too that if the model or stand lands in a river then you have to take a test. The river is just as deadly as an open plain to a skimmer, if anything safer to crash land into as we seen.

We normally measure from the base, cause the skimmer is flying, the few inches between the hull and the base account for the vertical distance. At least for these skimmers, smaller skimmers like defkoptas we use the model.

TK - please, show us your "interpretation", with some rules?

You've yet to show any....

A number of other people have though Nos, you just disagree our interpretation, which is fine.

Like I said ages ago, just ask the TO when you get to a tournament about how they will handle it to avoid any surprises. If you don't like how they handle it either deal with it or don't play, don't whine to the TO, they can run their tournament how they want.

Simple, easy, and the best way to address this issue until or if, GW FAQ's it.

No, noone has provided ANY rules backing for the measurement question - none. Mainly because there arent any rules that can be shown - a Valk / SR follows all the rules for normal vehicles, with the listed exceptions, and no more.

It's that simple.

invisiblade wrote:Rivers often count as dangerous or difficult terrain. Seems kind of odd too that if the model or stand lands in a river then you have to take a test. The river is just as deadly as an open plain to a skimmer, if anything safer to crash land into as we seen.

We normally measure from the base, cause the skimmer is flying, the few inches between the hull and the base account for the vertical distance. At least for these skimmers, smaller skimmers like defkoptas we use the model.

Deffkoptas aren't skimmers. That said, spraying water, turbulent winds above whater or a salmon jumping into your star engine do make it more dangerous. We don't know how skimmers work, and a vendetta might as well have the same defect as the harrier in the video I posted, and simply fall out of the sky when drawing air containing too much water. Also real life isn't the same as rules.

vonjankmon wrote:A number of other people have though Nos, you just disagree our interpretation, which is fine.

Like I said ages ago, just ask the TO when you get to a tournament about how they will handle it to avoid any surprises. If you don't like how they handle it either deal with it or don't play, don't whine to the TO, they can run their tournament how they want.

Simple, easy, and the best way to address this issue until or if, GW FAQ's it.

The "interpretation" isn't really one, but plain old stupid RAW. If you disagree with the RAW, you are free to change rules, as well as any TO is. But don't act like you are playing by the written rules. Also see Tenets of You Make Da Call #4.

Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Measurement - no argument possible, unless you simply make rules up

Terrain - the method for determining cover is shown as 2D. In is synonymous with above

vonjankmon wrote:Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Just pick a battlewagon(or any random box shaped vehicle without funky rules) instead of a vendetta. You could really argue that a battlewagon can never really be IN terrain, unless you pick the piece of terrain up off the table and pretend the vehicle is inside a wall/tree/rock. Usually the vehicles is on top(above) the terrain, just like the vendetta, and it's really hard to believe that a battlewagon or a landraider would destroy one of their tracks(which usually deflect dedicated anti-tank fire and artillery with ease) in a crater or the mentioned river crossing. However, that's the rules, and they don't change if you put that exact vehicle on a flying stand. Solid pieces of terrain are defined no further than by their actual volume, but area terrain is defined by a border. If your skimmer crosses that border, it's inside terrain, no matter how far up.

Jidmah wrote:

vonjankmon wrote:Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Just pick a battlewagon(or any random box shaped vehicle without funky rules) instead of a vendetta. You could really argue that a battlewagon can never really be IN terrain, unless you pick the piece of terrain up off the table and pretend the vehicle is inside a wall/tree/rock. Usually the vehicles is on top(above) the terrain, just like the vendetta, and it's really hard to believe that a battlewagon or a landraider would destroy one of their tracks(which usually deflect dedicated anti-tank fire and artillery with ease) in a crater or the mentioned river crossing. However, that's the rules, and they don't change if you put that exact vehicle on a flying stand. Solid pieces of terrain are defined no further than by their actual volume, but area terrain is defined by a border. If your skimmer crosses that border, it's inside terrain, no matter how far up.

Ok, your argument is null by the fact that how easy a vehicle can throw a track has nothing to do with its armor value. An M1 Abrams can take a direct hit from anti-tank fire but can still throw a track driving over some rubble that wouldnt harm a humvee.

What nos is arguing is that we play a 2d game in a 3d world. If anything overlaps its DT. UNFORTUNATELY, the rules are too vague to cover models like Vendetta's which is the REASON why people interpret how it affects them so differently. To say you are 100% right and there is no room for other interpretations is a little naive and you should really broaden your thought process before continuing to proclaim such things. The volume of ruling going against you should deter you enough to play it on your own/your TO's Interpretations because in the end THAT IS WHAT IT IS. <<< EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD! If the TO says it is this way, if there is a house rule that says it is this way, or if your opponent agree's its this way then IT IS THIS WAY, No use in arguing over something that is out of your area of control. Though, ide like to see you go up to a GT judge and tell them they dont know how to run the tournament. Or the Vegas tournament which is like the finals for the U.S. tournament circuit if I am correct. Ide say its pretty clear how it should be ruled. I just ask you BROADEN your thought process and use a LITTLE RAI, and than proceed to have fun.


I wont comment further here as the thread no longer matters to any of my gaming area's or local GT's. Let the stubborn be stubborn and mad while the rest of us enjoy this game we love.

The volume of rulings are with me, actually. The rules are perfectly fine to cover all vehicles; you treat alol vehicles equally and without giving one an unfair advantage.

Only for terrain and blast markers / templates, from memory, do you we play it 2D from above. Pplease dont use hyperbole, it weakens your already rule-less argument.

You're also missing the point of this board: this IS NOT a game. this is the perfect place to discuss what the rules *actually* say.

Oh, and as for "use a little RAI"? Well, I have done. They have FAQ'd EXACTLY the number of exceptions they want for the Valkyrie, which coincides EXACTLY with the in-codex rules exceptions for the SR *and* the BA codex has a FAQ which does not add additional changes. So, this means that "RAI" GW have had many opportunities to do what you suggest - and havent.

So, "RAI" you are wrong, as well as RAW

I love how people assume GW has even considered this. That's cute considering how many FAQ's we've seen missing the most important rules questions people had about an army.

So when they FAQ'd some key elements to the Valkyrie, having it brought to their attention enough that they remembered to include it in the BA and GK codex as printed rules, you truly believe they DIDNT think about anything else?

That isnt "cute", thats ignoring Occams Razor.