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:You are making the assumption Hull means Hull. This Is GW, they could have meant hull to include wings and such. The problem is a model of the scale of the Valk has never been made before, so the 5th ed rules were not written with it in mind.

One must make that assumption otherwise the entire passage is meaningless (same applies to any sentence in the rulebook). Hull has no meaning as a game term, therefore one must defer to its definition in the English language, lest the passage have no meaning at all.

Or do you have a better idea?

Hey, don't get pissy at me because GW can't write.

Might want to ratchet down the sensitivity meter a few hundred notches--no one's getting pissy.

After reading whole argument.. atleast i know the solution that works for me.
Do not use valkyries in non-apocalypse games. and in apoc games you can use them as fliers

I play demons, its not an issue for me either

I posit that the wings are indeed hull to be consistent.
Since Hull can encompass the skin of a vehicle rather than just the body, the wings/tail should be valid targets. Heaven forbid the heavy weapon of choice make ugly holes in the wings of the Valkyrie. Its not going to just walk it off. Landing gear and VTOL thrusters are included in the wings suggesting they have some significance.

Few would argue that one would have to draw LOS to the fuselage of a Thunderhawk, Phoenix Raider, Hellblade, or Barracuda. Making an exception for the Valkyrie isn't appropriate then.

As for disembarking, GW's loose rules strike again. I'd bring it to the attention of a tournament organizer beforehand.

I would make the side note, the term hull technicaly only applies to Ships, Zeplens & Tanks. A Valkalry doesn't actualy have a Hull, it has a fuselage. To close of a reading of this would indicate Valkalries could never hide.

How ever I'd agree with Oldgrue that the wings should be considered part of the Targetable Model. It's decerative equipment that's supposed to be ignored for LOS, such as antenne.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I would make the side note, the term hull technicaly only applies to Ships, Zeplens & Tanks. A Valkalry doesn't actualy have a Hull, it has a fuselage. To close of a reading of this would indicate Valkalries could never hide.

Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Danny Internets wrote:

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I would make the side note, the term hull technicaly only applies to Ships, Zeplens & Tanks. A Valkalry doesn't actualy have a Hull, it has a fuselage. To close of a reading of this would indicate Valkalries could never hide.

Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what English (The Language Spoken in England and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...

Alright, I'll give that this version's definition (part 2b) is vegue, so it could be applied. [An airship is boyancy lifted craft] But what constitutes a 'main body' is equaly vegue.

1 a: the outer covering of a fruit or seed b: the persistent calyx or involucre that subtends some fruits (as a strawberry)
2 a: the frame or body of a ship or boat exclusive of masts, yards, sails, and rigging b: the main body of a usually large or heavy craft or vehicle (as an airship or tank)

Geez, this is pointless. If you really want to get technical with this "From the HULL" arguement, then you are all wrong.

First of all I would consider the wings a major part of the valkerie. If you dont think so I already said that you can just angle it down in such a way that it CAN capture ground objectives anyways. Wether with the main body or the wing, which I consider a main part. What you cannot do is glue LONG antaenas to the thing that hang low to the ground. Is there a rule I missed that says "SKimmers cannot capture ground based objectives?" If not then this argument has no merit as long as SOME MAIN PART of the valk is close enough to the obj. I would say the wings are a main part. Otherwise you can't shoot them and you can shoot thru them as they are then considered decorative.

Secondly going back to the "HULL" arguement if you want to really be anal going that route then a Valkrie cannot capture ANYTHING at all. Its a plane. Planes do not have "Hulls" they have fuselages.

ARGH

Are people actually arguing dictionary definitions of hull when the rulebook says on page 72 "hull (including its legs and other limbs)" when discussing walkers? By what dictionary definition of hull are the legs of a walker included?

Omg this thread really showcases what is a) worst about this game, and b) worst about rules lawyers.

I think we can fairly safely conclude, however:
a) GW fails at writing rules forever.
b) There were some glaring oversights made in the writing of the Valkyrie rules such that...
c) The Valkyrie doesn't fit in to current 5th edition rules in a logical manner


Can anyone here seriously, with a straight face, tell me that they honestly believe GW designed a transport with the specific intent that it could not unload passengers in 90% of situations?

Trasvi wrote:
Can anyone here seriously, with a straight face, tell me that they honestly believe GW designed a transport with the specific intent that it could not unload passengers in 90% of situations?

They designed the grav chute insersion to enable disembarking.
A vehicle designed to drop troops and not to embark troops does not appear shocking to me; see the drop pod.

Anyway, I would not complain if an opponent uses valk on a shorter base in order to enable embarking/disembarking, as it will be more balanced (melta range, LOS // objectives, embarking).
I know this is not a perfect solution, since it should be used on its original base, but I feel like its the most viable solution.

"They designed the grav chute insersion to enable disembarking."

no, they developed it as another form of disembarking if it has moved flat out. not as it's only form of disembarking.

alarmingrick wrote:"They designed the grav chute insersion to enable disembarking."

no, they developed it as another form of disembarking if it has moved flat out. not as it's only form of disembarking.

While I believe it is RAI that they are intended to allow "normal" disembarking, the RAW is pretty clear that you can't unless you're disembarking into an elevated position.

Grav Chute Insertion clearly tells you how to perform the operation.

Since there are no rules for how to disembark from a valkyrie "normally" you pretty much just have to make up rules if you want to claim that you can do it.

Make up rules, no.

*Run it on a normal skimmer base.

*Count it as running on a normal skimmer base for all height purposes.

If your opponent is disagreeable (as I'm not the Valk player I would be said opponent) point and laugh at anyone saying they can't deploy until they agree with one of the above.

Frazzled wrote:Make up rules, no.

*Run it on a normal skimmer base.

*Count it as running on a normal skimmer base for all height purposes.

If your opponent is disagreeable (as I'm not the Valk player I would be said opponent) point and laugh at anyone saying they can't deploy until they agree with one of the above.

If you do that you're making up a rule that lets you use a different base than the one the model comes with.

Seriously, I'm all for letting my opponent disembark. I just realize that it doesn't actually follow any rules that are written in the book, and I also don't think that guard opponents should be able to break as many rules as they want just because they have a nice new model: when you need to break the rules to make something work, clarify with your opponent first, and if your opponent is not ok with it go with the pre-established rules. That's good sportsmanship.

No its agreeing to the height of a model, at worst "proxying". Its not making up a rule.

Frazzled wrote:No its agreeing to the height of a model, at worst "proxying". Its not making up a rule.

Page 3 of the rulebook?

1. What does it say?

2. OT but is your avatar a chicken with a guitar? cool.

Page three of the rulebook says that models need to be attached (it says "glued" actually) to the base that they come with. It also mentions scenic bases, and that if you want to use a non-standard base you should clear it with your opponent first.

Of course, if your opponent's ok with it, you can make up whatever rules you want to use regarding anything. This has been a long-standing gaming convention. At the same time, though, if your opponent wants to play by the "rules as written" then it's your responsibility to either comply, or not play the game.

My avatar is Beaker (from the muppets) with a guitar, and it says "boys don't cry." It's hilarious

willydstyle wrote:Page three of the rulebook says that models need to be attached (it says "glued" actually) to the base that they come with. It also mentions scenic bases, and that if you want to use a non-standard base you should clear it with your opponent first.

*** I'd argue thats being met. Its coming with the same base, just sawed down a bit. The second part also applies - using a nonstandard base. So we're good here.
If you disagree we'll just have to agree to disagree (say that five times in a row).

My avatar is Beaker (from the muppets) with a guitar, and it says "boys don't cry." It's hilarious

It is indeed.

Hands up, haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been said.

Everyone I know with them, or playing against them plays in the spirit of the game. It lands/hovers low for troops to embark etc, move it where you want in the movement phase. It's not actually a skimmer base as such as far as we're concerened. The rule book says somewhere that things will crop up in games not covered, go with the spirit and most importantly have fun! If I play against someone who's that argumentative about it carrying troops I'll go with what they say to finsih the game and not play them again. I play for fun - anything else is a waste of my time. If I'm not going to enjoy a game I might as well go stick pins in my eyes just because I can!

Did you at least read the first post? I pretty much covered all the salient rules that people have been unsuccessfully trying to debate for the following 11 pages.

willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

Yeah I did, just think if people are going to be that akward about a game when you've paid £35 on a 'topy' for it they need to grow up and play nicely It's an enjoyable hobby, competative gaming fair enough stick to the RAW but other than that do what's fun!

I'd proffer regardless of the differeing Gwar/Willy interpretation, a shorter base meets the definition of base you came with, as its the same base. If we're going true RAW then height is not part of the base discussion.

Again reasonable people could disagree, but THEY'RE WRONG WRONG REALLY REALLY WRONG!

Gwar! wrote:willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

I'd be inclined to agree with you, except for the fact that if your opponent doesn't want to let you use an alternate base... well what happens then? Most people (with some infamous exceptions) don't magnetize their bases.

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Depends on the source of the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull

Is that an English Dictionary? I thought Oxford Were the people who defined what English (The Language Spoken in England and the lanuage that the rulebooks are written in) was?

I could swear that was an American English Dictionary...

Funny, my copy of the rulebook tells us to measure in inches. Must a misprint, seeing as England uses the metric system.

willydstyle I am afraid there is no rule for basing. The whole "MUST come on the base it was supplied with" nonsense is long dead with 4th ed. The only rules for basing are "let your opponent know if you're not using the stock base and work it out from there"

5th edition rulebook, page 3:

"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."

The Valkyrie does indeed come with a plastic base and must therefore be glued to it. While I doubt anyone will ever require you to actually glue the model to the base, you've still got to use it.