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.

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW.

If someone pulled RAW on this in a tournament on something as badly written as this situation, I'd butcher their sportsmanship score as much as I could. That's what will probably happen if you play like this in tournaments. Is losing a tournament to a bad sportsmanship score worth allowing Valks to disembark like a normal vehicle and capture objectives? Ask yourself that...

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW.

If someone pulled RAW on this in a tournament on something as badly written as this situation, I'd butcher their sportsmanship score as much as I could. That's what will probably happen if you play like this in tournaments. Is losing a tournament to a bad sportsmanship score worth allowing Valks to disembark like a normal vehicle and capture objectives? Ask yourself that...

On the other hand, if the imperial guard player feels like he has to break very clear rules in order to win, then the other player would be even more justified in giving the IG player low sportsmanship scores.

willydstyle wrote:
On the other hand, if the imperial guard player feels like he has to break very clear rules in order to win, then the other player would be even more justified in giving the IG player low sportsmanship scores.

I wouldn't call this a "very clear" rules situation. It's a complete screw up on GW's part on multiple levels. You not only have badly written, contradictory rules that are clearly not what the author intended, you also are dealing with a badly designed model that they cobbled together out of parts they already had. If you need to keep someone from allowing their transports to contest objectives in order to win, you probably shouldn't be playing in tournaments anyway.

I agree that the RAI and the actual rules that are written in the rulebook and codex may not agree with each other.

I believe that there is RAI evidence for being able to disembark/embark, as it is mentioned in the rules for the valkyrie, although those rules do not specifically give you alternate rules for doing so.

So in order to play it as you think it is intended, you have to deviate significantly from how the rules say vehicle size and placement say to do so.

That would be using "house rules."

To expect your opponent to automatically let you use non-RAW rules in a tournament setting because you feel it's the right thing to do is not good sportsmanship.

If you discuss things ahead of time with your opponent, I'm sure that most of the time they'll agree with you, even in a tournament setting. However, you should be prepared to play by the rules if your opponent does not agree with you.

Kasrkin, we follow the rules to avoid bizarre situations. What do the rules tell us? "Measure to the hull." So we do that. If you don't want to follow the rules, go ahead. I doubt going "LOL let me cheat or I shoot your sportsmanship score" is a very intelligent response to following the rules though.

I'll admit, these rules do seem a little ridiculous. I wouldn't follow them, unless the IG player was being ridiculous himself about RaW. If your Valk had GKT in it for example.

willydstyle wrote:

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

I think they only did a 2 dimensional example because it would be extremely difficult to show proper disembarkation in three dimensions without using multiple camera angles. The rules say "within 2 inches."

If that is the case, then when the rules state that you must deploy within 12" of the board edge, do you always stay completely on the ground? Lets say you deployed on the top floor of a tall building that was at the outer limit of your deployment zone. This could easily put you more than 12" from your edge. But no one seems to care about that (?).

Not trying to start a new discussion on dimensions, but the inconsistency does seem odd IMHO.

RustyKnight wrote:Kasrkin, we follow the rules to avoid bizarre situations. What do the rules tell us? "Measure to the hull." So we do that. If you don't want to follow the rules, go ahead. I doubt going "LOL let me cheat or I shoot your sportsmanship score" is a very intelligent response to following the rules though.

I'll admit, these rules do seem a little ridiculous. I wouldn't follow them, unless the IG player was being ridiculous himself about RaW. If your Valk had GKT in it for example.

If the rule weren't ridiculous, I would agree with you. I would hardly call it cheating to expect my transports to be able to to the same thing that everyone else's transports are able to do. I would also not call an RAI interpretation of a horribly written rule cheating either. I'd call someone making me stick to an RAW interpretation in this situation bad sportsmanship. It's a total RAI situation because why would someone expect to not be able to embark or disembark from a transport? If they really intended to have the only transport in the game not be able to to embark or disembark troops the same way as every other transport in the game, they probably would have made it specific in the rules where they discuss grav chute insertion. I doubt they saw this oblique rules problem with the flying stand and just assumed everyone would stick with that. They probably didn't see the conflict the flying stand is creating and didn't bother to make up special rules for something they didn't take into account.

The source of the problem in many ways isn't the way the rules are written, but is that stupid flying stand. My Valkyries aren't modeled using it because I think it's badly designed and impractical. This doesn't break the rules, but my opponent could tell me I couldn't use the models if he wanted to. I would butcher that person's sportsmanship score if they did that to me at a tournament. How much of a jerk would someone be if they forced someone to take several hundred points out of their army over using or not using a flying stand?

It's not like I modeled them that way to get some kind of real rules bending game advantage. Even if I did model them so I could disembark my troops and capture objectives more easily with my Valks, that's really not some kind of over the top game changing situation. If you went up against any other army in the game, you'd have to deal with their non-dedicated transports contesting objectives. It's not going to change the whole game to have Guard players get to do the same thing literally everyone else can do.

Nurgle's Head Cheese wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:It would probably been wise of the rules writers to include a note regarding non-horizontal deployment then, since one could technically disembark a unit onto the ledge above the tank, so long as the top of the hatch was within 2" of the floor the models would be standing on, making it difficult to say whether or not a unit could actually disembark when enemy models surround the hatch on the door below.

In practice, at least in my experience, I have seen players measure horizontally because that's what the rulebook shows us.

CK

I think they only did a 2 dimensional example because it would be extremely difficult to show proper disembarkation in three dimensions without using multiple camera angles. The rules say "within 2 inches."

If that is the case, then when the rules state that you must deploy within 12" of the board edge, do you always stay completely on the ground? Lets say you deployed on the top floor of a tall building that was at the outer limit of your deployment zone. This could easily put you more than 12" from your edge. But no one seems to care about that (?).

Not trying to start a new discussion on dimensions, but the inconsistency does seem odd IMHO.

Because most of the deployment rules actually state "farther than 12" from the center of the board" and other phrases like that.

Yeah, but when they did say 12" from the table edged in previous editions, no one ever took verticle distance into account. There is a precedent within 40k to not be so strict with verticle distances...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hold the phone... I found a solution...

P.3 says you have to glue the model to the base... but it doesn't say how. Technically I could glue the clear plastic tall part of the stand sideways on the base and glue the valk next to it or on top of it. I could also cut the clear plastic part into small pieces and rest the Valk on top of that. It would be pretty easy to model it in such a way where the Valk would have an 1" of verticle clearance or less.

Problem solved...

Kasrkinlegion wrote:Yeah, but when they did say 12" from the table edged in previous editions, no one ever took verticle distance into account. There is a precedent within 40k to not be so strict with verticle distances...

You don't need a precedent to play the game however you like. You're entitled to do that anyway.

The fact that everyone plays a given rule incorrectly (or deliberately different to the RAW) doesn't change the rule.

P.3 says you have to glue the model to the base... but it doesn't say how.

Not a new solution, sorry. It inevitably gets dragged out by someone every time we have a discussion on skimmers and their bases.

willydstyle wrote:

Kasrkinlegion wrote:

TakeABow wrote:In a tournament setting, I would probably call RAW.

If someone pulled RAW on this in a tournament on something as badly written as this situation, I'd butcher their sportsmanship score as much as I could. That's what will probably happen if you play like this in tournaments. Is losing a tournament to a bad sportsmanship score worth allowing Valks to disembark like a normal vehicle and capture objectives? Ask yourself that...

On the other hand, if the imperial guard player feels like he has to break very clear rules in order to win, then the other player would be even more justified in giving the IG player low sportsmanship scores.

Let's not over state things. One of the first things you learn in both written and oral advocacy is to avoid terms like "Clearly", "Obviously," and the like. If things were truly "very clear," we wouldn't be four pages into discussion. The rule is straight forward, but it's application is only clear if you simply assume that all aspects of 40k are three dimensional, which the vast majority of players do not. Maybe we should be, but aside from highly specific situations like floors of a ruin, most players treat the game as pretty two dimensional.

I mean, if you roll 5" for difficult, and move from the table top to 2" up on a hill, do you only move 3" horizontally? If we're playing Pitched battle, and I deploy a squad 6" up in a ruin that's only 10" horizonatally from the table center line, is that a valid deployment because no model is within 12"?

There is a subtle difference between Literalism and RAW. RAW includes all the ways that rules are written thoughout the text to try to come to a logical conclusion. I'm not sure that it's crystal clear we're supposed to use a third dimension.

Well here is my take on it after very carefully studying the rules especially for the rules lawyers. I look at what is defined as the “Base” of the skimmer as the oval shaped black part of the model for the Valkyire. It’s the portion of the model that people can charge along with the hull not the clear “Stand or Flying Base”. The clear portion of the model is what attaches the model to the “base” and is called the “Stand or Flying Base”. Nowhere does it say that you can’t modify a model or the “Stand or Flying Base” or your models. In fact it doesn’t say you can’t modify the “base” anywhere only make sure you opponent doesn’t mind first.

If you want to make the “Stand or Flying Base” shorter by all means go ahead, it’s not part of the base but instead what attaches the model to the base. A base is defined in the dictionary as: “The lowest part of a structure” as in the black portion plastic that touches the table.

Now some people may say well it doesn’t say you can change the size of the “Stand or Flying Base” anywhere in the rulebook therefore you can’t do it. I would say well, show me where it says you can change or modify your models in any fashion? Tell them all their Forge World models, weapon options that didn’t come on the same sprue, or even the slightest smidge of green stuff makes that model illegal.

Now, do I think it should come to any of this? No of course not. I think you should play on the “Base” and “Stand or Flying Base” that comes with the model. Yet, if you have a person who insists you can’t contest objectives or load models into the Valkyire then simply put it on a shorter “Stand or Flying Base”. If they say it’s illegal to do that then utilize the argument I just wrote out above and show them all the illegal models in their army they can’t use anymore.

Now for you people who say that when GW said you can’t modify the “base” without asking your opponent that this includes both “Bases” and “Stands or Flying Bases” I would say RAW they are different and prove it otherwise.

On a final note if all above fails, just get a piece of cardboard and tape it to the ramp to extend it for those who insist that the above argument isn’t valid. Make it so long that it touches the ground and you then have found a way to fix all the problems. Ensure that it’s not painted and just a quickly cut piece of cardboard with a small piece of tape to be the ultimate smart ass.

broxus wrote:said a bunch of rules-lawyery stuff

I'm going to model all of my predators and battlewagons to be 9" wide and 3" long so I only have 3" side arcs. Better yet, I'll make them triangles so they don't have a rear arc at all.

The valkyrie is only thing I look at and say "RAW is wrong here".



It didn't exist when the rules were written so it slipped through on some things. There's gonna be a lot of rules worked out on a game-by-game basis. I'd say disembark in contact with the base and allow contesting from the base and hull. I'm inclined to say it's a bit advantageous to do that but you'd defeat the idea of the valk doing otherwise. I don't like breaking rules but I can't imagine seeing a unit crippled like that. People have workarounds for other things, why not here?


Edit: isn't the damn thing a skimmer? Wouldn't you just disembark it like it was a skimmer? They have that inherent variable height and you disembark them as if they were on ground level. Wouldn't the valk be treated the exact same way?

Am I dreaming or is this argument pointless?

willydstyle wrote:

broxus wrote:said a bunch of rules-lawyery stuff

I'm going to model all of my predators and battlewagons to be 9" wide and 3" long so I only have 3" side arcs. Better yet, I'll make them triangles so they don't have a rear arc at all.

If you feel thats legal and that the RAI support this by all means, I dont think many people would play with you. I think we all know what the RAI for the Valkyire are, its the people trying to argue the RAW make it a useless transport because they feel threatened by it.

Polonius wrote:I mean, if you roll 5" for difficult, and move from the table top to 2" up on a hill, do you only move 3" horizontally? If we're playing Pitched battle, and I deploy a squad 6" up in a ruin that's only 10" horizonatally from the table center line, is that a valid deployment because no model is within 12"?

Vertical distance only matters when you have to pass through air to get to someplace you are allowed to stand. Hills never have this problem, you are always moving on the horizontal across the terrain, even if the hill rises.

To your second question, yes, I would say you could actually do that if such a piece of terrain was situated to allow it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gandair wrote:Edit: isn't the damn thing a skimmer? Wouldn't you just disembark it like it was a skimmer? They have that inherent variable height and you disembark them as if they were on ground level. Wouldn't the valk be treated the exact same way?

Am I dreaming or is this argument pointless?

Gandair is correct. Page 71: Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal.

Emphasis mine. That one sentence makes Valkyries able to embark and disembark as normal. Measure distances as if the vehicle were on the ground, not on a base for the access points.

Kaaihn wrote:

Polonius wrote:I mean, if you roll 5" for difficult, and move from the table top to 2" up on a hill, do you only move 3" horizontally? If we're playing Pitched battle, and I deploy a squad 6" up in a ruin that's only 10" horizonatally from the table center line, is that a valid deployment because no model is within 12"?

Vertical distance only matters when you have to pass through air to get to someplace you are allowed to stand. Hills never have this problem, you are always moving on the horizontal across the terrain, even if the hill rises.

To your second question, yes, I would say you could actually do that if such a piece of terrain was situated to allow it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gandair wrote:Edit: isn't the damn thing a skimmer? Wouldn't you just disembark it like it was a skimmer? They have that inherent variable height and you disembark them as if they were on ground level. Wouldn't the valk be treated the exact same way?

Am I dreaming or is this argument pointless?

Gandair is correct. Page 71: Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal.

Emphasis mine. That one sentence makes Valkyries able to embark and disembark as normal. Measure distances as if the vehicle were on the ground, not on a base for the access points.

No, "working as normal" in this case means measuring from the access points, fire points, and weapons. The access points on a valkyrie are pretty well attached to its hull.

Yeah, you quoted before I could edit my mistake out. The intent is right, how I was presenting it was wrong.

The rule in full is: Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmers base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicles hull, its base or both.

"The skimmers base is effectively ignored". Where did this idea come from that we count the height of the base when the skimmer rule is telling us to ignore it?

Ignoring the base doesn't mean ignoring the height of the hull. Because disembarking happens from the access points on the hull, the height of the hull matters.

Ah, nevermind. The base is ignored for measuring purposes, it doesn't mean you ignore its existence and measure like the hull is on the ground. I'm interpreting that sentence wrong.

I am curious if anyone has emailed askyourquestion@games-workshop.com about this yet?

I just did so then, so I guess we'll get another perspective on it soon (about a week). The reply should provide some reference point for thought and house ruling on this issue. Also hopefully encourage its inclusion in a FAQ.

Here is the ruling from the main judge from the Big Waaagh GT. While not GW or faq, this is a major tournament and does set a precedent.

1. Can the Valkyrie contest objectives/claim them if loaded with troops, since it is so high off the ground? If I put its base on the objective?
2. Can the Valkyrie still outflank with troops on board?
3. Can the Valkyrie embark/disembark troops as normal without having to deep strike (height problems b/c of base)?

1. Yes, treat the vehical as if it sits on the table for this purpose.
2. Yes, the vehical does not lose this special ablitity.
3. Yes, look at answer # 1

http://thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30

Wildeyedjester wrote:Here is the ruling from the main judge from the Big Waaagh GT. While not GW or faq, this is a major tournament and does set a precedent.

1. Can the Valkyrie contest objectives/claim them if loaded with troops, since it is so high off the ground? If I put its base on the objective?
2. Can the Valkyrie still outflank with troops on board?
3. Can the Valkyrie embark/disembark troops as normal without having to deep strike (height problems b/c of base)?

1. Yes, treat the vehical as if it sits on the table for this purpose.
2. Yes, the vehical does not lose this special ablitity.
3. Yes, look at answer # 1

http://thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30

Man, I wish I was playing in that tournament. I'd model my 5 Land Speeders so they all sit 12.01" above the table. No more having to worry about meltaguns and rapid fire weapons, but I can still zoom 24" over to objectives and contest them.

Inat Faq is in play, so a player could request your model to be replaced with a model with an appropriate base for measuring heights and etc (Ie the base it came with)

dumplingman wrote:Sorry I'm ranting but this just really bothers me because arguments like this really ruin the fun of the game and the hobby.

If you choose a path you have to accept the advantages together with the disadvantages.

advantages of the 11" base:
- nearly unimpeded LOS to the whole battlefield, more target choices, less chance to grant a coversave to your shooting target.
- enemies can only assault the base, so they have to move a few inches further than if the thing would be sitting on the ground
- your enemy needs elevated terrain to get within half melta range
disadvantages of the 11" base:
- you need elevated terrain to embark into a valk

If i make you choose to:
- leave the base attached and play by the rules
or
- remove the base and still play by the rules

I bet ya 3 internets you'll choose to leave the base attached because the advantages far outweigh the single disadvantage.

nostromo wrote:

If you choose a path you have to accept the advantages together with the disadvantages.

advantages of the 11" base:
- nearly unimpeded LOS to the whole battlefield, more target choices, less chance to grant a coversave to your shooting target.
- enemies can only assault the base, so they have to move a few inches further than if the thing would be sitting on the ground
- your enemy needs elevated terrain to get within half melta range
disadvantages of the 11" base:
- you need elevated terrain to embark into a valk

If i make you choose to:
- leave the base attached and play by the rules
or
- remove the base and still play by the rules

I bet ya 3 internets you'll choose to leave the base attached because the advantages far outweigh the single disadvantage.

Good summation of the central conflict of this thread. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it too, and are willing to break the rules in order to do so.

If a player is always sticking you with strict RAW interpretations in friendly games you could always bust out Yarrick and his anywhere on the board after death teleportation rules. This is an obvious case where RAI should be used over RAW. There are always cases needed for both.

Regardless, I have a major tournament answer (GW GT circuit) so I will play with those rules until superceded by an update to inat faq or GW faq occurs.

I just hope there isn't an faq interpretation like there is for BoLscon where you must use a base that is the same height as the one that comes with the model. It just makes it so much more of a pain to transport...

Here is the section from the inat faq which most tournaments are now using:

RB.03B.01 – Q: When models are supplied with multiple differently sized bases, are players allowed to choose which base to mount them on?
A: Players must, to the best of their ability, mount models on the proper base size as dictated by the majority of Games Workshop hobby materials [clarification]. When in doubt, contact the tournament organizer for a ruling on a particular model.

RB.03B.02 – Q: If a model is mounted on a scenic base and an opponent objects to it, what happens?
A: If an opponent objects to a scenic base, the model may still be used in the game. However during the game, to the best of both players’ abilities, the model must be treated as if it were based on a standard-sized, non-scenic Games Workshop base [clarification].

I like to think of the Valk and its base/stand as an abstract entity, representing a fast, skimmer, transport, that flies around, letting people grav chute insert from altitude, fly low to allow disembarkation (with rapid assent), and hover at varying altitudes. To me the stand and model size represents the general footprint of the unit in general, such that it is a very visible model, but for the purposes of disembarking, I can either do grav chute insertion, or disembark out of its access points assuming it gets closer to the ground for drop off and likewise for embarkation, where it momentarily lowers itself for pickup. This should be considered a transient state and for the purposes of the movement phase is negligible.

EDIT: Removed the (like rotating a vehicle) since this would actually have game impact.