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:

I can understand that if people want to play the Valkyire as RAW and forget the RAI

Funny how defining RAI is completely and utterly subjective.

I personally don't believe the model was designed to bestow huge advantages (unobstructed line of sight, being out of melta range) without also taking the disadvantages that come along with it.

Hey brother I hear you, a IG player cant have his cake and eat it also. The way we play it is shoot the base, there is NO way you shouldnt be able to hit it with a melta if you can embark/disembark. Now being able to fly so high for LOS is an advantage but a huge disadvantage. You can see everything but everythign can see you and my Vendetta dies pretty fast.

broxus wrote:First, nowhere does it say that ramps are not part of hulls, so unless you can show me somewhere it is then we have to assume it is because it isnt listed. Read page 56 in the rulebook.

Yep, poorly worded on my part. What I should have said is that you measure to the access point, not the lowered ramp.

The access point is the actual doorway on the side of the tank. Check the example picture on page 67. No lowered ramps... measurement is to the actual hatchway.

Second, your right about the conversion issue, really no conversions are allowed. THis means you cant use any FW stuff, Green stuff on your models, and to an extreme level glue or paint since they are things that actually convert them. Also, unless the weapon or item comes in the boxed set you can’t mix and match or convert them, technically. (Btw, all this is garbage in my opinion but if you want to go by the RAW this is the case). So if someone wants to become a rules laywer on you can tell them many models they are using are illegal.

I think you have completely missed my point.

I never said we shouldn't allow conversions. My point was simply that using a conversion to get around the rules is no different to just creating a house rule.

Third, A flying base is not a base

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

Unless you can provide a rules quote that actually backs that up, I'm going to continue with the idea that a base is, in fact, a base. Due to, you know, being a base.

Of course if you think they are then you have to agree that hotshot lasguns are actually lasguns and therefore should get FRFSRF.

Not having seen the relevant codex entries, I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. Which is why I haven't posted one. Not sure how you think I've contradicted myself there.

Though, I think we all know the RAI were to treat the Valkyire as a normal transport,

Which, once again, is exactly the problem...

All my points are to give some leverage to help win the RAW debate and allow the model to be used as it was intended.

You won't 'win' the RAW debate. It was over days ago, in a completely different thread, and you haven't posted anything here that wasn't already covered before.

RAW, models cannot embark or disembark from ground level, and the Valk can not contest ground-level objectives. It's that simple.

And to use the model as 'intended' (which we're just guessing at anyway) I already provided a list back on the second post in this thread of 7 different potential house rules that have been suggested in threads so far, which includes the suggestions that you're trying to pass off as RAW.

It even states that the flying base is ignored except for assaults and don’t count,

...for measurement purposes, yes. You measure to the hull, not the base. Again, that's the problem...

they even put the work ‘flying base’ in its own grouping and TELL you its ignored.

The quotes around the words 'flying base' tell us that the base isn't actually flying. Not that it's something other than a base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:Of course, using a combination of common sense, RAI as inferred from battle reports where people who wrote the IG dex play with Valk's, and being an all around good sport and nice person to play against, you'll end up with the same conclusion that most TO's also seem to have reached, and play that your Valk's can disembark troops onto the ground.

...which is the same conclusion that most people on this board have reached as well.

We simply accept that to do so requires a house rule.

Is there any particular reason why GW does not publish regular official FAQ or Errata?

They claim that doing so
a) chews up too many resources that would otherwise be spent developing new stuff and
b) publishing FAQs too often confuses people.

What's Grav Chute insertion?

Is this a made up rule? Something in the IG codex? I've never heard of it before.

Dashofpepper wrote:What's Grav Chute insertion?

Is this a made up rule? Something in the IG codex? I've never heard of it before.

It's a special rule for the Valkyrie made to allow models to disembark legally from it.

I see. I presume the rule is available only in the new IG codex?

Dashofpepper wrote:I see. I presume the rule is available only in the new IG codex?

Most likely. I doubt it will be located in the Ork codex will it

Well, it can't be in the BRB, but there could be a FAQ somewhere so that the rest of us non-IG players can read about a new rule...

"It's a special rule for the Valkyrie made to allow models to disembark from it" after the Valkyrie or Vendetta has moved flat out.
i can't beleive Gwar is leaving part of the rule out? really?

alarmingrick wrote:"It's a special rule for the Valkyrie made to allow models to disembark from it" after the Valkyrie or Vendetta has moved flat out.
i can't beleive Gwar is leaving part of the rule out? really?

Errrm, yes and? It is still a special rule to allow them to disembark. They cannot disembark any other way unless they disembark onto raised terrain.

"They cannot disembark any other way unless they disembark onto raised terrain."
the rule states it allows them to disembark after moving flat out, not period. clearly their intent was to allow other forms of disemarking. and given the new ability for being able to "disembark onto raised terrain", is there a rule for that? does any other vehicle have that ability? i have a feeling if someone wanted to "disembark onto raised terrain", there would be a problem doing that, rules wise. but it's okay for now because it gives people a way to say "see you can disembark! that's clearly what they ment!"

alarmingrick wrote:and given the new ability for being able to "disembark onto raised terrain", is there a rule for that?

It's not a new ability. It's a side effect of the disembarking rules. You disembark within 2" of the access point. If the vehicle is 5" up in the air, that would allow you to disembark onto the top of 4" tall terrain.

does any other vehicle have that ability?

Every vehicle uses the same disembarking rules (2" from access point, or from hull if open-topped), yes.

i have a feeling if someone wanted to "disembark onto raised terrain", there would be a problem doing that, rules wise.

Like what?

but it's okay for now because it gives people a way to say "see you can disembark! that's clearly what they ment!"

'People' in this case largely being Gwar Pretty much everyone else has agreed that it was probably supposed to be able to work just like any other transport vehicle. It just doesn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Diraphe wrote:I'm not sure I follow the issue at hand, maybe I'm just dense? Skimmer rules seem pretty cut and dry to me.

Pg. 71, Skimmers; Measuring Distances-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 skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer in which case models may move into contact with the with the vehicle's hull, it's base, or both.

According to that you flat out ignore how high off the table the model is for the purpose of dis/embark or assaults. Why the controversy around it?

Danny Internets wrote:You missed the part where all vehicle measurements are made to and from the HULL of the vehicle. The HULL of the Valkyrie is 5.25" in the air. Furthermore, when embarking and disembarking, models must be placed within 2" of the access point, which is also 5.25" in the air.

I didn't miss anything, read what I bolded, it does say that measurements are made from the hull, then makes clear exceptions for access points/weapons/firepoints.

insaniak wrote:'People' in this case largely being Gwar Pretty much everyone else has agreed that it was probably supposed to be able to work just like any other transport vehicle. It just doesn't.

I love you too sugarbuns!

It can be "supposed" to work till the cows come home, it doesn't. If my Car is Supposed to go left when I turn the Steering Wheel left, but it doesn't, I still haven't gone left have I?

Diraphe wrote:I didn't miss anything, read what I bolded, it does say that measurements are made from the hull, then makes clear exceptions for access points/weapons/firepoints.

Yes, it does... because those things have their own rules.

Access points... you measure to the actual access point, instead of the hull.
Fire Points... you measure to the actual fire point, instead of the hull.
Weapons ranges... you measure to the actual weapon, instead of the hull.

That's why they're listed as an exception. You measure to the exact point, rather than just to the vehicle's hull, or to the base.

The reference to ignoring the base is to clarify that you measure to the hull (or to those specific points mentioned) instead of to the base. It doesn't say to pretend that the vehicle is sitting lower than it actually is... it just says not to measure distances to the base.

It does the exact opposite of proving your point, sorry, because it's measuring to the actual vehicle instead of the base that causes the problems in the first place.

Gwar! wrote:It can be "supposed" to work till the cows come home, it doesn't. If my Car is Supposed to go left when I turn the Steering Wheel left, but it doesn't, I still haven't gone left have I?

Your point being?

You don't need to keep popping in every time someone mentions using a house rule to point out that the house rule isn't RAW. We all know that house rules aren't RAW. Some people choose to use them anyway.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It can be "supposed" to work till the cows come home, it doesn't. If my Car is Supposed to go left when I turn the Steering Wheel left, but it doesn't, I still haven't gone left have I?

Your point being?

You don't need to keep popping in every time someone mentions using a house rule to point out that the house rule isn't RAW. We all know that house rules aren't RAW. Some people choose to use them anyway.

This is not the forum for discussing RaI or house rules.

This is quite often the forum for discussing RAI and house rules.

Even ignoring the frequent 'How do you play it' threads, quite often we'll talk about the RAW, and then once that's resolved we'll discuss various house rules that people use instead of the RAW.

You know, like I did back on page 1.

insaniak wrote:This is quite often the forum for discussing RAI and house rules.

Even ignoring the frequent 'How do you play it' threads, quite often we'll talk about the RAW, and then once that's resolved we'll discuss various house rules that people use instead of the RAW.

You know, like I did back on page 1.

Ya know this method is RAW as given in PG2 of the BGB.

Red_Lives wrote:

insaniak wrote:This is quite often the forum for discussing RAI and house rules.

Even ignoring the frequent 'How do you play it' threads, quite often we'll talk about the RAW, and then once that's resolved we'll discuss various house rules that people use instead of the RAW.

You know, like I did back on page 1.

Ya know this method is RAW as given in PG2 of the BGB.

Page 2 also says I autowin on a roll of a 1+. If you object, we roll off. If you don't let the roll off happen you are TFG for breaking TMIR

No it doesn't because that would make the other player mad, therefor breaking the PG 2 rule. As much as you may hate it, house rules are RAW.

Red_Lives wrote:No it doesn't because that would make the other player mad, therefor breaking the PG 2 rule. As much as you may hate it, house rules are RAW.

You house rules make me mad, therefore breaking the PG 2 Rule. As much as you may hate it, Playing by the RaW is RaW.

But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

Red_Lives wrote:But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

If RaW can be interpreted in two equally valid ways, you just decide which one to use before each game, as each is valid and right.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

If RaW can be interpreted in two equally valid ways, you just decide which one to use before each game, as each is valid and right.

The fact that such situations even exist is testament of the unsuitability of the Warhammer 40k ruleset for anything but the most casual environments.

So Gwar let me ask you this:

Which can you do as an IG player. Change the size of a flying base because it isnt the same as a base or can we use FRFSF on the Hot Shot Lasguns?

You see if they wanted flying bases to be the same they would have been listed as 'flying' bases not 'flying bases'.

I would much rather get the chance to use the hotshot lasguns with FRFSRF.

Thanks

Errm... The Flying base by definition includes the base and plastic flight stick. "Hotshot Lasguns" are no more "Lasguns" than "Lascannons" or Storm Bolters are Boltguns

Gwar, the flying base is NOT the base. Read it again.

Page 71, second paragraph:
Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull.

Its a seperate item then the base which is discussed later in the paragraph. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer.

It talks about them as if they are completly seperate items. You dont ever assault the flying base, just the base the large oval circle at the bottom.

If they wanted the 'flying base' to become part of the base they would have made the rule read like this.

Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying base' as part of the base which is underneath the hull.

If GW wanted flying bases as part of bases they would have stated and put it in page 2 also. You are trying to use RAI not RAW. IF they wanted 'fying bases' to be treated as bases they would have stated they are the same thing and not made a special note to make it seperate.

NOW what you are trying to say is that a flying base is a type of a base and should be treated as a base and any rules for bases apply to 'flying bases' because it has the word base in it. THat is the same logic that hotshot lasguns are the same as lasguns because it has the word lasgun in its description. You have argued very hard against this so why does this logic not apply.

So Gwar which is it?

broxus wrote:So Gwar which is it?

All of them and none of them. After all Page 2 lets us ignore all the rules!

Also, before the Valk was released, the Flying bases were ALL The transparent one. This is a case of a Model changing and the Rulebook being unable to accommodate it.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:But what happens when there is an ambiguous rule in your would gwar, that have 2 easily defensible RAW interpretations? (Valks grave chutes killing entire squads/Battlewagon deffrollas etc.)

If RaW can be interpreted in two equally valid ways, you just decide which one to use before each game, as each is valid and right.

The fact that such situations even exist is testament of the unsuitability of the Warhammer 40k ruleset for anything but the most casual environments.

Gwar! wrote:

broxus wrote:So Gwar which is it?

All of them and none of them. After all Page 2 lets us ignore all the rules!

Also, before the Valk was released, the Flying bases were ALL The transparent one. This is a case of a Model changing and the Rulebook being unable to accommodate it.

Regardless of the changes to bases and 'flying bases', RAW say nothing about getting your opponents permission to use using the 'flying bases' the model comes with only the base. RAI, I wont debate because lets be honest Gwar you are the most to the letter RAW guy I know, so please admit that by the RAW it doesnt say you cant change your 'flying base'. Otherwise admit you can FRFSRF Hotshot Lasguns, Ill take this anyday.

Errrm... I have always maintained you cannot change the base.