Valkyrie Gunship and Blast, on target but off table?

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.

**Tri**

Shep wrote:
You guys remember the catch-22 of drop pod petals.

You 'have to' open the pod when it lands. But no one wanted to extend the hull of the model and thus the deployment radius to that extreme of a measurement. So someone got clever and proclaimed that "petals aren't part of the hull"

? sorry but even if you claim that the petals are not part of the hull you would only be ignoring them for shooting purposes. It would still have a massive foot print that you can't come with in 1" of and you can deploy from.

**jbalthis**

in aeronatucs, a fuselage is the main body of an aircraft excluding the wings.

Also, Has anyone ever been in the situation where the sponsons on a raider/predator/lemon russ were the only thing visible?

**Orkeosaurus**

Unfortunately, the fuselage is only the hull of flying boats. If it looks boat-like.

For example:

I don't think "hull" actually has a definition for something like a Valkyrie.

**Skinnattittar**

Erhem,

I don't know what everyone else's Valkyries are made of, or represented to be made of, but mine are made of Heklethmarratrysphritum. It has properties such as being able to levitate via electromagnetic manipulation, so it can fly quite easily even with both wings blow off. The wings of my Valkyries are simply exist as part of a tradition that flying vehicles have some sort of wing like aparatus, but are essentially decorative and provide a place for weapons to mount to, but are not necessary for continued flight. The jets at the wing tips are also strictly decorative, and have no actual purpose. The tail boom is used mostly for extra-atmospheric travel, and has no effect otherwise.

So, my Valkyrie's wings are decorative and part of the weapons mounting system, but are not part of the hull any way more than the body of a heavy bolter is. Heck, I could even say my nose section is strictly decorative and the crewmen in the body are the actual pilots, with the models up front simply being mannequins as part of tradition.

Until GW or some other large body that the vast majority of gamers can agree with, I will continue to play that only the main body of the Valkyrie actually counts as the hull, and thus far no-one has objected to this assessment, and other IG players where I game are following suit, with the only objections coming from TFGs, and they are never happy anyhow so nobody really gives a rat's ass.

**Orkeosaurus**

I don't care about your magic lollipop airplane. I was talking about the Valkyrie made by Games Workshop.

**Tri**

Ok Skinnattittar what about the weapons in the wing i can still hit those right? They take up allot of space under the wing don't they. How do you work out if the hole is over them?

**Skinnattittar**

@ Tri : If you hit the body of the weapons (so we can only include the Multiple-Missile Pod and in the case of the non-existent Vendetta, the twin linked lascannons which might be mounted on wing slings) then yes, you can count that as a hit, I see no problem with that, RAW that is.

**willydstyle**

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Tri : If you hit the body of the weapons (so we can only include the Multiple-Missile Pod and in the case of the non-existent Vendetta, the twin linked lascannons which might be mounted on wing slings) then yes, you can count that as a hit, I see no problem with that, RAW that is.

I still don't see how "wings aren't hull" is RAW.

**winterman**

I still don't see how "wings aren't hull" is RAW.

Or how one would be TFG for having an objection to his conclusion. I look at that diagram of the vendetta shooting the razorback and see TFG written all over it.

**Orkeosaurus**

I don't think there is a RAW.

Hulls are supposed to be for boats, missiles, and dirigibles.

**willydstyle**

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think there is a RAW.

Hulls are supposed to be for boats, missiles, and dirigibles.

This is pretty much correct, but we can RAI (oh no a dirty word!!!) that wings are "hull" because of the sentence about what doesn't count as "hull."

**Orkeosaurus**

On the plus side, we now know undoubtedly that shooting a Deathstrike missile is shooting the hull!

**willydstyle**

Orkeosaurus wrote:On the plus side, we now know undoubtedly that shooting a Deathstrike missile is shooting the hull!

Since a missile is not a barrel

**Skinnattittar**

Well, having worked in aviation myself, the fuselage of an aircraft (I will cite everything from a C130 to a Huey, including Apaches, Blackhawks, A-10s, Predators, etc...) is pretty much always also refered to as the hull. Although Orkeo seems to want to be ignorant of other definitions than the one he found, and the cited opinions of those in the know, hull also includes the 'body' or fuselage of an aircraft. So, I would also include the 'pontoons,' the extensions from the back of the main body, as part of the hull. The wings however, are not.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't care about your magic lollipop airplane. I was talking about the Valkyrie made by Games Workshop.

So was I. Apparently I was not aware that Orkeo is the one who gets to decide what and how a Valkyrie flies, because I sure as heck don't remember it being described in the rules section, much less what it is made of (majorily) nor the properties of said material in the rules. But it is possible I am struck blind whenever I try to read that section of the rules.

**Orkeosaurus**

It's not the correct terminology. And Valkyries are skimmers anyways.

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Actually by your own logic there's no way to tell what the hull is, because everyone makes up whatever rules they want for their vehicle, so your arguments are kind of pointless.

**Skinnattittar**

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's not the correct terminology. And Valkyries are skimmers anyways.

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Unfortunately for you, it is quite a known fact that Orks LOVE jelly beans.

**Orkeosaurus**

Actually upon further research, a hull is valid for the body of an armored tank. Which is further evidence for my theory of every vehicle rule having been tested on a Predator...

Following this, it might be possible for the hull of an eldar skimmer to include the wings as a function of it being a tank. Valks aren't tanks anyways though.

**jbalthis**

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's not the correct terminology. And Valkyries are skimmers anyways.

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Actually by your own logic there's no way to tell what the hull is, because everyone makes up whatever rules they want for their vehicle, so your arguments are kind of pointless.

Just to repeat one of my earlier posts, unless defined specifically in the rules you have to go by real world definitions. Lascannons are documented in the wargear book. Also, a barrel (real world terminology) can be applied to the picture or model of a lascannon and be identified.

**Drudge Dreadnought**

augustus5 wrote:I think this can be answered without really getting into the RAW or the RAI.

If the model can be partially off table and be considered in play then certainly you should play the blast marker the same way.

This doesn't answer the question of whether the model is illegally placed or whether the blast template and scatter partially off edge and stil count, but certainly in a game where you allow the wing to hang off then you should have given the same latitude to the player whose blast marker scattered.

To many variables are not covered in the rules. Because of that, this is how i would play it.

**Orkeosaurus**

jbalthis wrote:Just to repeat one of my earlier posts, unless defined specifically in the rules you have to go by real world definitions. Lascannons are documented in the wargear book. Also, a barrel (real world terminology) can be applied to the picture or model of a lascannon and be identified.

I know.

I was referring to Skinn's weird post about defining parts of a vehicle as whatever you want them to be. Like saying the front half of your Valkyrie is a decorative banner.

**Skinnattittar**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
jbalthis wrote:Just to repeat one of my earlier posts, unless defined specifically in the rules you have to go by real world definitions. Lascannons are documented in the wargear book. Also, a barrel (real world terminology) can be applied to the picture or model of a lascannon and be identified.
I know.

I was referring to Skinn's weird post about defining parts of a vehicle as whatever you want them to be. Like saying the front half of your Valkyrie is a decorative banner.

Noooo, I was kicking back in your face that you can't decide what a vehicle is made of and how important it is to its operation. A wing is not part of an aircraft's hull, it is attached to the hull. Orkeo is not the expert on what is imperative to what makes the Valkyrie flies, as there are no rules about what is imperative to keep skimmers aloft.

**kirsanth**

kirsanth wrote:Can you attached weapons to petals/antannae/gun barrels(!!)/banners that are on vehicles?

**Orkeosaurus**

Skinnattittar wrote:Noooo, I was kicking back in your face that you can't decide what a vehicle is made of and how important it is to its operation. A wing is not part of an aircraft's hull, it is attached to the hull. Orkeo is not the expert on what is imperative to what makes the Valkyrie flies, as there are no rules about what is imperative to keep skimmers aloft.

Why are you referring to me in the third person?

The thrusters on the tips of the wings allow it to operate as a skimmer. That doesn't necessarily make those thrusters vulnerable to fire, but if you were trying to represent the vulnerabilities of the vehicle accurately it would come into play.

If your Valkyries all have whatever properties you want them to, why can't my "turret" be a decorative cardboard cut-out of a turret, immune to fire? Why can't the front half of my Land Raider be a decorative flag that you can't shoot? It's stupid. Even if the nature of the thrusters don't carry any weight in the rules, there are a lot of instances where the properties of the vehicle do, so I don't know why you think the properties of the vehicle are subjective.

**Skinnattittar**

Straw Man Argument : An informal fallacy, a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Example;

Orkeosaurus wrote:If your Valkyries all have whatever properties you want them to, why can't my "turret" be a decorative cardboard cut-out of a turret, immune to fire? Why can't the front half of my Land Raider be a decorative flag that you can't shoot? It's stupid. Even if the nature of the thrusters don't carry any weight in the rules, there are a lot of instances where the properties of the vehicle do, so I don't know why you think the properties of the vehicle are subjective.

EDIT : Misspelling corrections.

**Orkeosaurus**

Explain yourself.

If you're going to insult me, you sure as hell better back it up.

**Skinnattittar**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Explain yourself.

If you're going to insult me, you sure as hell better back it up.

If you want to get into a pissing contest, you're welcome to try and take it to PMs, but I am not trying to 'insult' anyone. You want an argument? You're welcome to try and make one, but that is not what these threads are for, but I also reserve the right to make an example of types of arguments for others. They can do with it as they wish.

**Orkeosaurus**

So you can't back up the assertion that I've misrepresented you. Or give any shred of evidence for it. Good to know.

**Skinnattittar**

Orkeosaurus wrote:So you can't back up the assertion that I've misrepresented you. Good to know.

I already have and I will not chase a shadow of an opponent that can do me no harm. I am moving on, my suggestion is you do as well. I will make no more posts to this line of badgering.

**Orkeosaurus**

You just copied and pasted the definition of a logical fallacy onto a post with a quote on it. You have no argument.

If calling the other guy wrong counts as proof then: No, you!

Now, if that silliness is over, does anyone know if there were rules governing the hull for fliers in the Imperial Armor books? Or was it just measured from the base?

**augustus5**

jbalthis wrote:in aeronatucs, a fuselage is the main body of an aircraft excluding the wings.

Also, Has anyone ever been in the situation where the sponsons on a raider/predator/lemon russ were the only thing visible?

All I can say is that if the IG players in my area start trying to pull off some of this crap then I'm sure as hell going to be parking my Land Raiders and Predators where only the weapon sponsons are visable from behind cover so I can shoot and the enemy can't shoot back at my invisible sponsons.