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.

Polonius wrote:You can fit even more if you go with a bit of a low rider tilt back on the wave serpent. Should give you the extra half inch or so you need to deploy fully.

Which would be accurate at least in so far as several of my skimmers are at differing angles... (everybody out!@)
I think I've been convinced you can likely get a full squad out at 1.5in height.

While true, the representational effect of the skimmer is that it is going up and down, the rulebook explicitly states they cannot land, and must end their movement [with their base] on the ground. (p.71)

edit: doh! @ sonofterra

It's funny, because I've been measuring diagonally for disembarking from my wave serpents, and I've had opponents tell me, "You should disembark farther than that" to which I reply "not if I want to play by the rules."

Can somebody who owns an assembled Valk measure the vertical distance from the bottom of any hatches to the ground, please?

As I believe the Valk can be mounted both tilting forwards and backwards, I would really appreciate both measurements.

Thanks in advance.

Trasvi wrote: In other words, X and Y are freely variable in most circumstances, but for any given X+Y there is generally only one Z,

But the fact that there is a Z, and that Z can be different depending on where the model is placed, proves that the game is inherently 3D.

Specifically, we don't need a rule covering how the Z axis works, because it works automatically. A model's height is determined by where it is standing rather than by specific rules governing height.

I don't think you'll find anyone who will ever say that skimmers/jump infantry need to move in arcs, so this is just being deliberately obtuse.

You need to be careful dictating how 'everybody' plays...

The same was said about people measuring horizontally for disembarking... which this thread has proven is not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Interesting item came up. If your standard skimmer is 1.5in off the ground, and you can only deploy up to 2in from the door, if we’re talking full 3d aren’t you saying you can’t deploy anything at all as a standard trooper base is one in wide

The actual mechanics of this have already been covered, so I'll just point out that this isn't a new argument. It was argued on and off last edition as well.

At our LGS we measure to and from the base, including meltas at half range etc cause of this kind of crap

insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote: In other words, X and Y are freely variable in most circumstances, but for any given X+Y there is generally only one Z,

But the fact that there is a Z, and that Z can be different depending on where the model is placed, proves that the game is inherently 3D.

Specifically, we don't need a rule covering how the Z axis works, because it works automatically. A model's height is determined by where it is standing rather than by specific rules governing height.

But the BIG difference here is that the Valkyrie's Z is significantly different to any other model's Z given the same X+Y coordinates. Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level). Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.

Trasvi wrote:But the BIG difference here is that the Valkyrie's Z is significantly different to any other model's Z given the same X+Y coordinates.

Sure, but that's a side effect of GW packaging it with a honking great base, not a product of an inherently 2D ruleset...

Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level).

Except for skimmers and jetbikes, obviously...

Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.

I agree. But I'm not sure now if you're responding to my post or just making a random point...

Z height is not the same for any units on a hill or in ruins either.

IMO this is just more people stuck in 4th ed thinking.

Many people played 4th ed LoS wrong, and as a result played a largely 2D game. Now that TLoS has been "introduced" (again... it existed in 4th ed, people just didn't realize it) and there is even more affirmation that 40k is indeed a 3D game (every time you check LoS you're using three dimensions), but people don't want to change how they've been playing.

insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote:But the BIG difference here is that the Valkyrie's Z is significantly different to any other model's Z given the same X+Y coordinates.

Sure, but that's a side effect of GW packaging it with a honking great base, not a product of an inherently 2D ruleset...

Up until now there haven't been explicit rules covering Z height because the Z height is assumed to be the same for all units (ie, ground level).

Except for skimmers and jetbikes, obviously...

Well.. not really. The game wouldn't function significantly different if Skimmers were one inch closer to the ground/

Considering that it is the only model for which this is a factor i think we do need a rule covering exactly how it works.

I agree. But I'm not sure now if you're responding to my post or just making a random point...

Except for the fact that LoS is drawn from a model's "eyes." or the weapon if mounted on a vehicle.

Since different models are different sizes, the Z coordinate from which they draw LoS are individual to each model independent (at least partially) of the height of the terrain they are standing on.

40k is 3D almost entirely.

The only real exception that I can find is for working out how many hits a template or blast causes.

I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Oooh snap! (sorry couldn't resist)

Polonius wrote:I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?

Trasvi wrote:Well.. not really. The game wouldn't function significantly different if Skimmers were one inch closer to the ground/

I wasn't suggesting that it would. I was respondng to your claim that all models other than the Valk are at ground level, nothing more.

Isn't the honking great base what the entire issue is about ?

The post you were responding to was about whether or not the game is inherently 3D. You point that a particular model with a honking great base needs special rules to function (which I've never disagreed with in the first place) seemed an odd response to that.

There haven't been any aspects of the game where significant height variation on the model has been a factor, yet.

Other than LOS?

Specifically, all the rules in 40k seem to assume that your model is touching the ground, or at least close enough that it doesn't matter.

Well, yes, of course they do. Because gravity works.

That doesn't make the game 2D, because it's still using 3D models, and using a LOS system that relies on tracing a line from the model's head (in its actual, physical, 3D location) to the target's body (in its actual, physical, 3D location).

For the game to be functionally 2D we would ignore the physical model, and any terrain it is standing on, and just trace a line from model base to model base, and check if there's anything in between.

For most units and vehicles, the point where their base touches the ground is where anything significant is determined from.

Again, not because the game is 2-dimensional, but because for the mechanics that rely on models touching, or for measuring distances, that's the most convenient point, because that's where the base that defines the model's footprint is.

But all that base does is define a footprint, not define the entire model, as would be the case in a 2D game.

In the cases where it isn't (tall vehicles/walkers with weapons etc) the model extends the entire way from the base to the weapon.

Not sure what you mean here.

To me, is seems that the rules are a little unclear of where the Valkyrie actually is. In LOS terms, it is up in the air. In assault terms, its on the ground. In shooting terms, on the ground. In transport terms, in the air.

In all of these cases, it's in the air. The assault rules allow you to assault the skimmer by contacting the base because assaulting involves grenades, short ranged shooting and rock hurling as well as fisticuffs.

If there is flat ground at (10,10), then no matter what unit type, you are at z=0.

Unless you're a skimmer or a jetbike, in which case you're at z=0+ somewhere between half an inch and an inch and a half, depending on the flight stem used.

And when referencing points on the model, (drawing LOS from the model, for example) the z will potentially be different for every different model.

willydstyle wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?

Because LOS requires literally being able to trace a line from the weapon to the model. If anything, they limited the arc from a full 90 degress of vertical arc.

Look, models can be higher or lower, that's undisputed. there simply are hills. I think the more references there are to specfic rules that explain how things work in 3d, the better the evidence is that the overall rules don't really operate in 3d. They're rules exceptions.

Polonius wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think any rules set that allows a model to hit a valkyrie with a powerfist probably isn't as truly 3-d in effect as you might think.

Then why bother defining a weapon's vertical arc for LoS when mounted on a vehicle (45 degrees)?

Because LOS requires literally being able to trace a line from the weapon to the model. If anything, they limited the arc from a full 90 degress of vertical arc.

Look, models can be higher or lower, that's undisputed. there simply are hills. I think the more references there are to specfic rules that explain how things work in 3d, the better the evidence is that the overall rules don't really operate in 3d. They're rules exceptions.

I think that's kind of my point: a core rule (Line of Sight) is completely three dimensional, and is determined by the actual size, shape, and even mobility of the model firing the weapon... so why should three-dimensional rules be considered exceptions rather than the norm?