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.

Danny Internets wrote:

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.

England uses a schizophrenic mix of Metric and Imperial.

willydstyle wrote:

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.

Then the game breaks or you revert to RaW Rool #1: You may break RaW at any time so long as both parties agree to it

Danny Internets wrote:

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.

Yes, that's why our Speed Limits are in Mile per Hour, we Still buy things in Pounds and Ounces and we Order a Pint at the Pub. No surprise at your flag tbh. (protip: Check my Flag, I think I know it just a Little better than you). Edit: as willydstyle got there before me, yes we use both.

Danny Internets 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"

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.

1) If you're gonna copypaste from Illegal Downloads at least remove the linebreaks.
2) You forgot to add the second part (typed in, not copypasted):
Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

If your opponent does mind this, don't play them
If you're in a Tournament, get it cleared by the TO pre tournament, then your opponet HAS to accept it or auto forfeit.

I brought up the question asking if there is a difference between flight stand and base before, and was told that there is a difference (ie the stand is not part of the base). If this is true then modifying or altogether replacing the flight stand has absolutely nothing to do with the big black pancake looking base that it will still be glued to (ie the actual base it came with), thus I am not altering the base and my opponent does not have reasonable grounds to protest the height of the stand.

I'm bringing it up again because it garnered a very small amount of responses from the people who are regularly posting in this thread before, and it now seems very relevent to the direction the discussion has gone in.

Yes, that's why our Speed Limits are in Mile per Hour, we Still buy things in Pounds and Ounces and we Order a Pint at the Pub. No surprise at your flag tbh. (protip: Check my Flag, I think I know it just a Little better than you). Edit: as willydstyle got there before me, yes we use both.

Regardless, the British rulebook uses the metric system while the language of the American rulebook is specifically changed, so using an American English dictionary to discern the meaning of said rules isn't exactly a far stretch. I know you're just being argumentative because that's what you do, but let's get real.

Gwar! wrote:1) If you're gonna copypaste from Illegal Downloads at least remove the linebreaks.

I own a hard copy of the rulebook. Get over it.

2) You forgot to add the second part (typed in, not copypasted):
Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

If your opponent does mind this, don't play them
If you're in a Tournament, get it cleared by the TO pre tournament, then your opponet HAS to accept it or auto forfeit.

I didn't include the second part because it is irrelevant. Asking your opponent (or a TO) if it's OK to break a rule is the same as agreeing to play a house rule. But we're not talking about house rules here, we're talking about actual rules. The rules say you must use the base it is supplied with (unless you agree on a house rule with your opponent--ie, "it's ok to mount a Valkyrie on a Land Speeder flight stand").

Danny Internets wrote:I didn't include the second part because it is irrelevant. Asking your opponent (or a TO) if it's OK to break a rule is the same as agreeing to play a house rule. But we're not talking about house rules here, we're talking about actual rules. The rules say you must use the base it is supplied with (unless you agree on a house rule with your opponent--ie, "it's ok to mount a Valkyrie on a Land Speeder flight stand").

Wait, what? how is that breaking the rule. The ACTUAL rule is to ask your opponent. How does one break the rule by following the rule? They don't that's how. You Can mount your models on whatever freaking bases you want. You just have to ask your opponent if he minds. If he does, don't play them. That is well within the rules. If he doesn't mind, play them with the new base. That is ALSO within the rules.

Please, explain how I am "Agreeing to a house rule" when the rule is in the freaking Rulebook?

I'll afford you some credit and assume you're being intentionally obtuse.

Rule A says you do one thing. Rule B says you can break Rule A if your opponent says it's OK. Regardless, you are still breaking rule A.

It's exactly the same as GW's "The Most Important Rule":

"The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
– the choice is entirely yours."

The entire rulebook is prefaced with a section that says you can break ANY rule as long as both players agree. Agreeing to break a rule (and thereby use a different rule) is called a house rule, yes?

Got it now?

The second part of the base rule is just a reiteration of The Most Important Rule. You and your opponent can also agree bolters are S10 AP1 if you want, as per the rules. Whoop-dee-doo.

Let's get back to the actual rules, instead of discussing the legality of ignoring them.

I'm just interjecting something here so I appologize for breaking up your debate and not sure if this has been addressed but I did not have time to go through all 10+ pages of posts. In the rulebook under skimmers under moving skimmers, it states 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 midair."

And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?

I Think IGVamp just ended it. If it MUST be set down at the end, the idea that it cannot capture because its too high in the air has now been squashed.

smart_alex wrote:I Think IGVamp just ended it. If it MUST be set down at the end, the idea that it cannot capture because its too high in the air has now been squashed.

Apart from the bit in the skimmer rules that say when measuring any and all distances to ignore the base and measure to the hull.

But hey, it's been ended, no point in continuing the discussion right?

IGVamp wrote:I'm just interjecting something here so I appologize for breaking up your debate and not sure if this has been addressed but I did not have time to go through all 10+ pages of posts. In the rulebook under skimmers under moving skimmers, it states 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 midair."

And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?

The "must be set down on the table" does not mean that you remove it from its base. The rules are clear that you only remove a skimmer from its base when it is wrecked or immobilized. What being "set down on the table" means is that you can't just keep it hovering in the air to do "pop up" attacks.

NO! Bad Willydstyle! The Discussion was ended! How dare you post more!

But seriously, Willydstyle has it correct. Now add me to your sig again

Gwar! wrote:NO! Bad Willydstyle! The Discussion was ended! How dare you post more!

But seriously, Willydstyle has it correct. Now add me to your sig again

I only need it once, then I have your whole army of "Gwar! is right" backing me

One would think you just drop them down vertically from the hatches keep withing 2" horizontally like any other transport.

Neexo wrote:One would think you just drop them down vertically from the hatches keep withing 2" horizontally like any other transport.

Indeed. Inf act if you look at EVERY SINGLE DIAGRAM for disembarking you will see it works on a Horizontal plane, but alas some people are pretty SUPERSRS about a Children's Card game... I mean Wargame.

IGVamp wrote:I'm just interjecting something here so I appologize for breaking up your debate and not sure if this has been addressed but I did not have time to go through all 10+ pages of posts. In the rulebook under skimmers under moving skimmers, it states 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 midair."

And it also says that "if a moving skimmer starts or ends it move in difficult terrain, it must take a difficult or dangerous terrain test."

But by some of the comments I heard from people earlier if they are going to treat it like the model is 6 inches in the air then how could I be affected by the river/rocks/etc below me unless I am technically landing on them and the big flying base is just so I look like a cool model, not so that it affects game play. Also, are those same people who say I cannot deploy a unit normally from my hatches also going to let me ignore the fact that I am hovering over a lake that they can't move through since technically my model is in the air and not touching it?

The book tells you that skimmers can swoop and hover a few meters off the ground, and that when they move they can move over other models. You must set the model on its stand back down on the table though at the end of your move, you can't stay at altitude.

In practice think of it as settling to minimum hover at the end of its move, which is just above ground level. When it moves, it can gain altitude and swoop over other models and terrain. If you settle down to ground level in difficult terrain, you are low enough for the terrain to possibly immobilize you.

Bear in mind the terrain check is an abstract test, not based on the physical properties of the terrain you stopped on. You would have to take the test from landing on a shallow crater difficult terrain the same as if you landed on a woods difficult terrain. This is why this rule applies equally to the Valkyrie on its higher base than other skimmers; the height of the base doesn't matter for this rule.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

Has it been cleared yet that the flight stand is part of the adaption of this model from a different rules set, is just there to look cool and it doesn't interact with current rules in any logical way?

Trasvi wrote:Has it been cleared yet that the flight stand is part of the adaption of this model from a different rules set, is just there to look cool and it doesn't interact with current rules in any logical way?

This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out.

P.s: Why do you imply that it is just their to look cool? Do you have some sort of preconceived answer to your question? Hardly neutral Language there....

Also: Seeing as it is up on its high base, does it still block line of sight through the base?
I was under the impression that my fire warriors aren't allowed to shoot under/through their devilfish. By the same token (seeing as a Valk is just a skimmer it is just on a flying base) does it block LOS?
(apologies if something covering that is actually in the valkyrie rules, i dont have the IG codex)

This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out.

Seeing as you seem to be aware of the great failings of GW's rule system, is there a particular reason for the adamant defense of something that clearly doesn't make sense? Or do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

(I'm not saying that the Valk can't be played perfectly to fit the rules, i'm just saying that playing it to fit the rules has some great logical flaws)

Trasvi wrote:Also: Seeing as it is up on its high base, does it still block line of sight through the base?
I was under the impression that my fire warriors aren't allowed to shoot under/through their devilfish. By the same token (seeing as a Valk is just a skimmer it is just on a flying base) does it block LOS?
(apologies if something covering that is actually in the valkyrie rules, i dont have the IG codex)

You have the wrong impression. Firewarriors can fire under the fish so long as they can actually trace LOS under it. The same with the valk. And yeah, it blocks line of sight, but only the actual model.

Trasvi wrote:

This is GW. By the time they Clear it up it will be 2020 and 7th ed will be out.

Seeing as you seem to be aware of the great failings of GW's rule system, is there a particular reason for the adamant defense of something that clearly doesn't make sense? Or do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

(I'm not saying that the Valk can't be played perfectly to fit the rules, i'm just saying that playing it to fit the rules has some great logical flaws)

A lot of things in the rules don't "make sense". It doesn't matter if the do or don't. Play by the rules or don't play at all.

Neexo wrote:One would think you just drop them down vertically from the hatches keep withing 2" horizontally like any other transport.

Actually, every other transport measures 2" from the access point. It's just that with every other transport the vertical distance is irrelevant because the access point is along the ground.

As pointed out earlier, the developers are quite aware of the existence of the third dimension in the rules of Warhammer 40k (refer to the section on Ruins). Instead of restricting the measurement to horizontal distance, they indicate that you simply measure from point A to point B. Using both the explicit meaning of the language and the context of the rules, it is impossible to reasonably conclude that the vertical distance is to be ignored.

Its almost like no one at GW ever tried to use it following the rules directly. Maybe they didn't even use the stand in playtest.

*facepalm*

Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?

Nyarlathotep wrote:*facepalm*

Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?

You should simply expect to play by the rules. If you have personal objections to playing by the rules then perhaps tournaments aren't for you. Consult your TO if you have specific questions.

Nyarlathotep wrote:*facepalm*

Should I expect this sort of inane rules-lawyer type argument if were I to play in a tournament?

You should probably at the very least expect some sort of discussion as to how to make them work within the 5th edition rules, unless the tournament has an entry in their FAQ covering it.

@Nyarlathotep:

Explaining how the rules work is not "rule lawyering." Unfortunately how the rules interact with the Valkyrie is very clear, and also seems to be very contrary to how the designer intended it to be.

This discussion is intended to be about how to play the model, while breaking the least number of rules and still having it be a fun and usable vehicle.

Some people think that you can follow all of the rules and the valkyrie does just fine. Other people disagree to one degree or another.

Coming into a discussion and throwing around insults does not do anything to further the discussion.

The last time I played against a Valk, we decided to allow deployment directly under the Valk. (but when in the valk, counting at that height.) I won't pretend this is the RAW way to play, but it seemed work while ignoring the least rules, and fluff wise could be excused as the troops using descent ropes. Clearly I'd recommend bringing this up with your opponent, (or the TO) before the games begin, so there's less argument overall.

I'm thinking of putting my devilfishes on these stands.

Do your Devilfishes come supplied with that stand?

Steelmage99 wrote:Do your Devilfishes come supplied with that stand?

The flying stand is not part of the Base

The stem that forms the actual 'flight' part of the 'flight base' would certainly seem to qualify as a part of the base to me...