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.

On models being half-on/half-off:

GW Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!

Don't know why I didn't think to check before when it came up but I think that clearly shows you it's not possible to play with half of a model phasing out of existence.

Sidstyler wrote:On models being half-on/half-off:

GW Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!

Don't know why I didn't think to check before when it came up but I think that clearly shows you it's not possible to play with half of a model phasing out of existence.

Half off != Off.

Hey, you're back? Alright!

Models coming in from reserve partially onto the table are not moving off the table, they are still moving on.

The ruler is on the table.

kirsanth wrote:The ruler is on the table.

It is clearly off the table!

Actually a small portion of the ruler is on the table.

G

It's like someone should clarify the rules for tournament play. Oh wait ... they did!

RB.94D.02 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they cannot move on from the table edge without moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles forced to move faster than combat speed on the turn they move onto the table?
A: No, if a vehicle is so large it cannot totally fit onto the table when moving onto the table at combat speed, players are allowed to leave the back end of the vehicle hanging off the edge of the table [clarification]. If players are concerned about their model falling off the table they can mark the spot where it is supposed to be and then temporarily move the model fully onto the table. Note: While a vehicle is partially „hanging off the table‟, any access points off the table may not be used and any blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if the blast is technically off the table. (INAT 3.1)

Better off trying a new line of defense: "I'm sorry, your Guard army is TOO AWESOME to be deployed against my guys. I think that's an auto-win for me!" Perhaps a baseball-style luxury tax? "I deployed two rhinos and some AOBR tac marines, and you have three Vendettas. Gimme $20."

I really don't like it when people reference unofficial, fan-made documents like the INAT FAQ, but in any case, since GW apparently can't be arsed with that whole rules-writing thing, I'll accept the idea of marking where it's "supposed" to be, and leaving the model fully on the table, so long as you stick with the whole ruling about templates and access points, anyway.

Personally though I don't like it, because I can just imagine people doing that with all their vehicles and not just the valkyrie. Even if they're more than capable of getting them on the table normally.


Anyway, I still say cutting the tail off of a valkyrie because you personally don't consider the tail part of the vehicle for a deliberate in-game advantage is a dick move. Not only because of the in-game advantage but because you're defacing such an awesome model like that to begin with.

Y'know, it's threads like this that make me glad I don't play in competative games. How I choose to model my vehicles and miniatures is down to me, and what I think looks cool.

If I wanted to use the Valk model as a base for some other conversion, you can bet it's not because I'm thinking "Oooo! That means I can exploit the TLOS rules!", it's because I'm thinking "Heh, that'll look sweet!"

Is modelling my Sentinels to have a hunched gait modelling for advantage, or modelling to look badass stalking through terrain. Oh, wait, I forgot, real players don't use Sentinels...

Casual play FTW!!111!!!one!eleven!! (IMHO)

The issue is because removing the tail isn't a "sweet conversion." It's not because we are ultra-competitive.

No, but then the issue wasn't about modelling to have folding wings or about A10's. Or about using different models as counts as units, but they've all been brought up, and in many cases, shot down, as... errr, were.

The issue was about whether a practical decision for transportation or storage would be deemed as modelling for in game advantage. Somewhere along the line the OP, and anyone that dares to convert their models, is being painted out as cheating heathens out to exploit the rules.

Because sweeping generalisations aren't just for kids.

I just figure, hey, y'know, it's a game. Can't we just have fun blowing up tanks and mowing down hordes of infantry?

But... the problem is that its NOT a practical decision for transportation or storage. The valk's tail is one of the easiest magnetic conversions out there, since he is already planning on making a cut to remove the tail its actually easier to then use magnets than it is to somehow fix those gaping holes. So the conversion itself must not be the problem.

Cut the tail off to make the valk whatever length fits into your case, then stick the tail piece in another case. But oh no, you have to have another case to carry the tails? If you are playing IG you already have a lot of cases, one more isnt going to make a significant difference. Dump the tails into an old shoebox for all that it matters.



So there is a minor point that you will need one more box to put the tails in. A small bit of convenience to not have that one extra box, but it would be a convenience.

Against that we have obvious problems that the models arent tournement legal and that the smaller model is giving distinct advantages to the owner. First there is the smaller target that the valk presents, making it tougher on the battlefield. Secondly there is the smaller footprint, allowing the player to use the valk in places where it simply wouldnt fit otherwise.

The valk/ vendetta is an amazing buy, its not only a great vehicle in the IG list, it would be a fantastic vehicle in any armies list. For its price its an incredible bargain, it literally is the best vehicle in 40k.

It does have the disadvantage that its a large model, making it awkward to use in some circumstances. But if one were to model for advantage so as to remove that one drawback..... why then its possible to field full squadrons of valks easily.



Modelling for advantage is more likely to be called for extreme cases, such as making a unit of prone infantry, a misplaced weapon on a vehicle or a vehicle that has obviously been reduced in size.

A model change that gives no advantage (or even may be disadvantageous) to the owner is unlikely to raise any questions. But anything that removes the only disadvantage for a powerful model is very likely to be called.




But....if your local gaming group is all fine with this upgraded form of the valk then its ok. Just dont EXPECT other people to be fine with anything that gives this big of an improvement to a units gameplay.





Sliggoth

But... the problem is that its NOT a practical decision for transportation or storage. The valk's tail is one of the easiest magnetic conversions out there, since he is already planning on making a cut to remove the tail its actually easier to then use magnets than it is to somehow fix those gaping holes. So the conversion itself must not be the problem.

Ahh, yes, but he said he didn't have confidence in magnets, a point that has since been well refuted, but would still be valid from the PoV of the OP.

Now, that's be as it may, but I guess I have a problem with an assumpation that he's disguising an attempt to scam players with what he believes is a practical issue. Especially as (Rightly or wrongly) he doesn't believe that the tail counts for LOS anyhow, only for (as also pointed out) a rare occasion for emergency disembarkation.

Now, those points can be discussed without need for

Anyway, I still say cutting the tail off of a valkyrie because you personally don't consider the tail part of the vehicle for a deliberate in-game advantage is a dick move

This, however, does get my full support

Not only because of the in-game advantage but because you're defacing such an awesome model like that to begin with.

As I'm mainly a modeller, and a casual gamer, I'll continue to happily do what I want, and rely on my friends not to assume the worst.

Not that I'm likely to chop the tails off any Valks I manage get my hands on. I may be tempted to try and scratch build a UD-4L-a-like instead, but that's just me.

Sliggoth wrote:But... the problem is that its NOT a practical decision for transportation or storage. The valk's tail is one of the easiest magnetic conversions out there, since he is already planning on making a cut to remove the tail its actually easier to then use magnets than it is to somehow fix those gaping holes. So the conversion itself must not be the problem.

Cut the tail off to make the valk whatever length fits into your case, then stick the tail piece in another case. But oh no, you have to have another case to carry the tails? If you are playing IG you already have a lot of cases, one more isnt going to make a significant difference. Dump the tails into an old shoebox for all that it matters.



So there is a minor point that you will need one more box to put the tails in. A small bit of convenience to not have that one extra box, but it would be a convenience.

Against that we have obvious problems that the models arent tournement legal and that the smaller model is giving distinct advantages to the owner. First there is the smaller target that the valk presents, making it tougher on the battlefield. Secondly there is the smaller footprint, allowing the player to use the valk in places where it simply wouldnt fit otherwise.

if it's such an easy conversion, can you show me a picture of an example? i couldn't find any and i looked before starting this thread. i have experience with modelling with rare earth magnets and i don't have confidence in them holding the tail with movement especially over time. until you show me an example, your guess that it works is just that.. a guess.

as for a matter of convienence, paying $150+ for cases is NOT a minor point. some of us like to have our army look nice both inside the case and on the table and are willing to pay for that convience (heck, battlefoam's ENTIRE business premise revolves around this). i'm not paying that much so that i have to lug my stuff on two trips (including the customary after work to go dinner) across the parking lot while leaving my models unattended as that is neither convienent nor practical. also, if i take the time and effort to paint/finish my army and to cut custom foam to protect it, i'm not going to simply throw a big piece into a shoe box.

in the matter of my "true motives", all the consipiracy theorists can take off their tin foil hats. i don't own any valks and may never so i'm not gaining any modelling advantage by using this conversion. considering how strong the "ZOMG UR CHEEATIN!" opinion is (despite it being a fairly split vote) and the fact that battlefoam may have an alternative for me, i don't think i'd do even if i bought the models. <sarcasm> obviously, i spent the time over the past year voting over 3,000 times in the gallery looking for a possible in game modelling advantage... </sarcasm> ughhh. the only reason i considered this conversion is because it's a cool model but the size is not convienent due to the ridiculous space the valk takes up in the carrying case (not because of some in game reason). is it really that hard to debate a rules question without accusing a poster?

and sliggoth, i'd like to play in your store. apparently, you have a lot of terrain that a valkyrie mounted on a 6" base with the tail being mounted another few inches higher keeps bumping into. in my store, it would NEVER get a cover save due to it's height and the tail would never bump into ANYTHING. you have to post some pics of the impressive city fight games with multistory buildings that your post alludes to.

Admiral Arkright wrote:The issue was about whether a practical decision for transportation or storage would be deemed as modelling for in game advantage. Somewhere along the line the OP, and anyone that dares to convert their models, is being painted out as cheating heathens out to exploit the rules.

If you pay closer attention to the OP and all his posts since, you'd know that really wasn't the issue. If you need to remove the tail for easier transportation that's fine, some people even suggested using magnets if you were going down that route.

But even in the very first post, the OP made his intentions rather clear. He claims he can't make this work without removing the tail booms "permanently", claims that he wouldn't gain any advantage in game because the tail booms don't "count" and are apparently just there for decoration, and even the poll options are biased...which I really don't understand, why even bother with a poll if you word it in a way so that you're right no matter which option is chosen?

I also hate how he's acting like the valkyrie would be much more "broken" if the tail did count, by repeatedly pointing out the emergency disembarkation rules and how he could place models within 2" of the tail. The odds of this ever actually being an issue in-game are pretty slim if you ask me, and I'm not even sure what the issue here really is. Yes, if you had to perform an emergency disembarkation the rules clearly state you could place models anywhere within 2" of the hull of the vehicle. I'm perfectly willing to accept that as one of the few advantages of being so damn big, but if you ask me that's the only fair way to play the thing, because if you stick to the very strict definition of "hull" in regards to aircraft then it leads to rather bs situations like the one I mentioned before, where a valkyrie/vendetta could be hidden behind a building and immune to enemy fire, while being able to fire it's wing-mounted weapons just fine.

It just seems to me like some people are trying to bend the rules (or make up their own as it were, since GW didn't put much thought into it themselves apparently when designing the valkyrie) so that they get all the advantages of being such a large model with none of the disadvantages.

So there is a minor point that you will need one more box to put the tails in. A small bit of convenience to not have that one extra box, but it would be a convenience.

Hell, I think it would be much, much easier to just buy the Battlefoam tray and keep it in its own case/box/plastic bag, whatever. But no, we have to make the horde army fit in a single case. And we can't just not use the valkyrie, can we?

The valk/ vendetta is an amazing buy, its not only a great vehicle in the IG list, it would be a fantastic vehicle in any armies list. For its price its an incredible bargain, it literally is the best vehicle in 40k.

Indeed, I'd really love for Tau to get something similar designed for them. Honestly it fits our play style better anyway...

Ahh, yes, but he said he didn't have confidence in magnets, a point that has since been well refuted, but would still be valid from the PoV of the OP.

Why is it still valid? Rare earth magnets are small and strong enough to hold the tail booms in place just fine. If he's confident enough to go through with such a "conversion" in the first place, and has worked with magnets before like he says, then why does he still have doubts as to whether or not it will work?

We have some people saying that rare earth magnets are so strong that you can shake a tank while it's being held upside down and the magnetized parts won't budge. He claims the opposite, in his experience the bonds aren't that strong and you can't play with the models in game without them falling apart, and not only does he seem to be the only one I've ever seen on an online forum to say this, he's also (conveniently enough) not interested in even giving it a try with the valkyrie. It's much easier to just assume he's right and try to force me to accept it, making me look like a bad guy for calling him on his rules interpretations.

I'll admit I don't know the rules very well and I screw gak up all the time, but if I had any money I'd bet that GW never intended for the valkyrie to be played that way. Of course they won't make a ruling on it one way or the other because they stand to make more money off of people like warboss, whose decision to buy the model may be based solely on whether or not the wings/tail "count". Which is why I think they avoided answering that particular question in an otherwise brilliant FAQ, one of the few good ones they've actually put out otherwise.

If GW came out and said that wings/tail don't count as the hull (which is technically true in real life, but also remember that in real life you can still freaking shoot the wings and tail of an aircraft if you can see them and that they are obviously part of the vehicle!) and published it in an FAQ, that would be fine. I wouldn't agree with it but hey, they're the ones that designed the game and the rules for the model, who am I to argue? Until then though I'm sticking with common sense: if I can see part of the vehicle, I can shoot it (and it would likely have a 4+ cover save anyway if I did).

Now, that's be as it may, but I guess I have a problem with an assumpation that he's disguising an attempt to scam players with what he believes is a practical issue. Especially as (Rightly or wrongly) he doesn't believe that the tail counts for LOS anyhow, only for (as also pointed out) a rare occasion for emergency disembarkation.

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong way and I'm seeing ill-intent where there isn't any. What this basically boils down to then is the "hull vs. not hull" debate, and sadly my opinion on that is not about to change anytime soon, no matter how many homemade FAQs people reference. I'll concede that, according to the dictionary definition of the word, the wings/tail aren't hull, but this is clearly not how GW defines it.

If that's the case then what about vehicle turrets? I saw in another topic someone point out that a pintle-mounted weapon on a razorback couldn't shoot through the turret, which sounds like common sense right? But technically a turret is not part of the hull of a vehicle. Obviously not as big of an issue as the valkyrie but it's the same exact thing, if you stick to the very strict definition of the word then things like turrets and sponsons don't count as part of the hull. If you can't target a valkyrie's huge-ass tail then you should be able to shoot through turrets as well. Would warboss have a problem if I tried to shoot him with one of my hammerheads that had it's weapon sticking out over a hill, but claim it couldn't be shot because all he could see was the barrel of the gun and the turret it was mounted on, which doesn't count as the hull (or if he wanted to shoot at an engine nacelle)? Would he have a problem if I was fielding a land raider and shot at him with one of the lascannon sponsons, which happened to be the only part of the vehicle visible to him so he couldn't fire back?

I doubt he would. He's already shown himself to be a hypocrite by claiming that a chopped-down land raider is illegal (but it's easier to fit in the case like that and I shouldn't have to pay for bigger cases or foam to transport them because it's too much money and a pain in the ass to carry and I like how it looks!!!!), but somehow chopping a third of his vehicle off isn't. It's the same exact thing, except in the case of the land raider the dictionary actually supports his view, and obviously it's really hard to argue with the dictionary.

as for a matter of convienence, paying $150+ for cases is NOT a minor point. some of us like to have our army look nice both inside the case and on the table and are willing to pay for that convience (heck, battlefoam's ENTIRE business premise revolves around this). i'm not paying that much so that i have to lug my stuff on two trips (including the customary after work to go dinner) across the parking lot while leaving my models unattended as that is neither convienent nor practical. also, if i take the time and effort to paint/finish my army and to cut custom foam to protect it, i'm not going to simply throw a big piece into a shoe box.

You said you already had the cases. Like 5 of them. And you're greatly exaggerating the cost at that, the Sabol motor pool case I mentioned before is only about $40 (or at least both of mine were). If you can make them both fit in a single case then it won't cost you more than $80 for both the case and foam to do it.

Why does it matter how they look inside the case? So long as the models are kept from moving around and bumping into each other and getting broken, that's all that matters. Romeo's foam isn't just designed to look nice (which is what I guess you were talking about, custom cut > pluck and pick), it's designed to maximize the space inside your case so you can fit more models into it. Being concerned about the look of the inside of the case is just silly.

Why are the models unattended? Do you not have friends or family that go to the store with you that can watch them or actually help you carry them inside? And exactly how many cases are we talking about here, because I still carry around two cases for my rather small Tau army and I never have to make two trips to the car with them. In any case I'm not sure what to tell you, if you don't like having a lot of models to carry then you picked the wrong army, simple as that. If I was truly as worried about it as you are then I wouldn't have gone with one of the biggest armies in the game.

Well in any case, if you're truly unwilling to try and make this work then I'm afraid your only options are either 1) don't play with valkyries (they're so damn good though you can't not take them, so that isn't an option, obviously), or 2) don't play at the store. Or maybe you could just leave the models at the store, maybe work with the owner and see if they can't be put on display until you need them?

in the matter of my "true motives", all the consipiracy theorists can take off their tin foil hats.

Yeah, but this isn't quite the same as "9/11 was an inside job!". I don't think my assertions are completely off-the-wall insane, but whatever makes you feel better I guess.

i don't own any valks and may never so i'm not gaining any modelling advantage by using this conversion.

So this whole thread was a waste of time. Gotcha.

considering how strong the "ZOMG UR CHEEATIN!" opinion is (despite it being a fairly split vote) and the fact that battlefoam may have an alternative for me, i don't think i'd do even if i bought the models.

I wouldn't go by that poll though, as some of us are deliberately not voting (despite the fact that we disagree with you and do have a problem with the "conversion" because of how the poll options are worded. If you were truly interested in unbiased opinions you should have put a little more thought into that, instead of saying "It's either wrong despite the fact that I gain no advantage or it's right because I gain no advantage."

<sarcasm> obviously, i spent the time over the past year voting over 3,000 times in the gallery looking for a possible in game modelling advantage... </sarcasm>

...um...that was relevant.

If I understood that correctly then I assume you've seen pictures of this same "conversion" and wouldn't mind showing them to us?

the only reason i considered this conversion is because it's a cool model but the size is not convienent due to the ridiculous space the valk takes up in the carrying case (not because of some in game reason). is it really that hard to debate a rules question without accusing a poster?

Well, when you go about it the way you have then yeah. You're leaving very little room for actual debate and being very defensive.

I know the valkyrie is a cool model, but it's big, and there's really no way to get around it. It's part of what balances out the model, it takes up a lot of space and is very hard to hide, if not impossible. If it didn't have these drawbacks then it would just be insane...it's already way too cheap (points-wise) for what it does.


I mean am I really wrong on this? Should I just shut up and accept that, despite the fact that a valkyrie takes up half the table (not an exaggeration at all ) I can only actually shoot and see an area about as big as one and a half rhinos?

Why is it still valid? Rare earth magnets are small and strong enough to hold the tail booms in place just fine. If he's confident enough to go through with such a "conversion" in the first place, and has worked with magnets before like he says, then why does he still have doubts as to whether or not it will work?

Ahhh, yes, OP vs OP, what I meant, was that the opening post is valid because it approaches the subject from the assumption that it would have to be a permenant conversion as opposed to a reversable one.

Now, I feel that there would be several methods to make it a reversable conversion, and that magnets are only one of them, but hey

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong way and I'm seeing ill-intent where there isn't any.

That's all I'm asking, the rules issues I don't have a great deal of issue with, as I said, I'm only a casual gamer.

Now, to be fair to all sides, I'd have thought the discussion should have turned into a discussion on modelling options, rather then assume he's trying to screw over his opponents, but I think both sides have been guilty of escalation over essentially petty issues. Just trying to defuse things a bit.

Sidstyler wrote:,

1) I also hate how he's acting like the valkyrie would be much more "broken" if the tail did count, by repeatedly pointing out the emergency disembarkation rules and how he could place models within 2" of the tail. The odds of this ever actually being an issue in-game are pretty slim if you ask me, and I'm not even sure what the issue here really is. Yes, if you had to perform an emergency disembarkation the rules clearly state you could place models anywhere within 2" of the hull of the vehicle.

2)It just seems to me like some people are trying to bend the rules (or make up their own as it were, since GW didn't put much thought into it themselves apparently when designing the valkyrie) so that they get all the advantages of being such a large model with none of the disadvantages.


3)Hell, I think it would be much, much easier to just buy the Battlefoam tray and keep it in its own case/box/plastic bag, whatever. But no, we have to make the horde army fit in a single case. And we can't just not use the valkyrie, can we?

4)Why is it still valid? Rare earth magnets are small and strong enough to hold the tail booms in place just fine. If he's confident enough to go through with such a "conversion" in the first place, and has worked with magnets before like he says, then why does he still have doubts as to whether or not it will work?

5) Of course they won't make a ruling on it one way or the other because they stand to make more money off of people like warboss, whose decision to buy the model may be based solely on whether or not the wings/tail "count". Which is why I think they avoided answering that particular question in an otherwise brilliant FAQ, one of the few good ones they've actually put out otherwise.

6)If GW came out and said that wings/tail don't count as the hull

7) Would he have a problem if I was fielding a land raider and shot at him with one of the lascannon sponsons, which happened to be the only part of the vehicle visible to him so he couldn't fire back?

I doubt he would. He's already shown himself to be a hypocrite by claiming that a chopped-down land raider is illegal (but it's easier to fit in the case like that and I shouldn't have to pay for bigger cases or foam to transport them because it's too much money and a pain in the ass to carry and I like how it looks!!!!), but somehow chopping a third of his vehicle off isn't. It's the same exact thing, except in the case of the land raider the dictionary actually supports his view, and obviously it's really hard to argue with the dictionary.

8) Why are the models unattended? Do you not have friends or family that go to the store with you that can watch them or actually help you carry them inside?

9)If I was truly as worried about it as you are then I wouldn't have gone with one of the biggest armies in the game.

10) So this whole thread was a waste of time. Gotcha.

11)I wouldn't go by that poll though, as some of us are deliberately not voting

12) If I understood that correctly then I assume you've seen pictures of this same "conversion" and wouldn't mind showing them to us?

13)

the only reason i considered this conversion is because it's a cool model but the size is not convienent due to the ridiculous space the valk takes up in the carrying case (not because of some in game reason). is it really that hard to debate a rules question without accusing a poster?

Well, when you go about it the way you have then yeah. You're leaving very little room for actual debate and being very defensive.

14) I mean am I really wrong on this? Should I just shut up and accept that, despite the fact that a valkyrie takes up half the table (not an exaggeration at all ) I can only actually shoot and see an area about as big as one and a half rhinos?

ok... i'll address this one point by point as that's the only way to respond to a troll who long ago stopped posting about the issue at hand and has simply just switched to commenting on a poster (in this case me)

1) i never said the valk rules were broken; i was just pointing out a consequence of saying the tail is part of the hull. as for how unlikely it is, it happened to me a month and a half ago with my tau. a devilfish got immoblized in the shooting phase and was assaulted in the following assault phase and destroyed while the exits were blocked; my embarked firewarriors had to disembark via emergency disembarkation. yeah, that's really exotic and i'm sure i'm the only one who has ever had a vehicle immobilized first and then destroyed in the assault phase in the entirety of 5th edition because it's such a rare occurence.

2) i'm not bending anything. i simply asked a question about a rule and you prefer to troll about the intentions of the OP (me) instead of discussing the rules.

3) please show me where i said i want to fit everything in one case. this is example #1 of you simply lying about what i've said. i said i'd prefer not to carry 3 cases (one of which is the double size GW one) as it's a PITA. two would be my preferred limit.

4) i know, it's amazing that i would use my first hand experience with modelling rare earth magnets several different times (my tau battlesuits on their bases, my belial model with removable weapons, my attack bikes with interchangeable weapons, my missles on my tau vehicles) over the opinion of other internet posters. maybe it's the rare earth magnets i've picked up in two separate states that somehow just unluckily ended up being bad despite purchasing them at different times and stores... or maybe they just don't handle torque well (i mistakenly called it normal force earlier).

5) please show me where i commented on the wing not being a part of the hull. this is example #2 of you simply lying about what i've said. YOU"RE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS MENTIONED THE WINGS NOT BEING A PART OF THE HULL AND USING THEM IN AN EXAMPLE FOR SHOOTING AND LOS. no one has disagreed with your ridiculous examples yet you seem to blame me for doing so. if you're going to disagree with me then at least use the examples i've given instead of making up your own and attributing them to me.

6) same as 5. yet again claiming that someone (namely me) is saying the wings aren't hull. at least you're consistent... wrong but consistent. example #3.

7) yes, i consider cutting a landraider in half to be illegal and modelling for advantage. here's a little set of diagrams (one view of a horizontally cut LR and another vertically cut) at the bottom of the post to make it easy for you. i do consider cutting off the black areas to be different cases between your two examples. for the landraider, you're cutting off the real life definition of the hull and an in game part of the vehicle to which weapons and exit/entry points are a part off. for the valkyrie, you're cutting off something that in real life isn't the hull and in game has no weapons or entry points and for which only around half the people consider it to be the hull. yeah, i see a difference between the two. as for your devilfish example, if GW decided to remodel the devilfish and add thin fins jutting out 6" from each side that served no purpose other looking cool, then i wouldn't have a problem with someone cutting them off. using the current devilfish is not because the engines or fins don't jut out.

8) yes, because i should need to drag other people to carry my things for me while i go play with toy soldiers at the hobby store. i didn't grow up in mayberry like you so i don't trust people i don't know well (which includes the random people that walk into a games store). while i don't think anyone who actually plays 40k would take the stuff i can't hold them responsible if someone does and no one notices (and neither would the police or any judge). my items are MY responsibility and i've seen people that didn't believe that get stuff stolen at FLGS as well as conventions multiple times.

9) yeah, it sucks that i didn't magically forsee the valkyrie coming out in the guard codex released in may 2009 when i finished building my guard army in 2003. you're right, it's 100% my fault that i didn't predict that GW would come out with a model that takes up 3x the storage space of a leman russ 6 years after i finished collecting/building/painting my IG.

10) no, only your last half dozen responses as they have mostly addressed various posters (mainly me) instead of the issue at hand.

11) it's a good thing these unseen masses that all agree with you have you as their spokesperson.

12) do you even read my posts? example #4 of you lying about what i said. i said I DIDN'T FIND THE CONVERSION and asked for those who say the conversion is easy to find an example. i looked and didn't find one.

13) it's hard not to be defensive when someone like you comes out swinging everytime they post and devotes the majority of their efforts into debating the ulterior motives and character of the poster instead of the rules question at hand.

14) i can't tell if you're exagerating or not since you in all seriousness use such ludicrous examples as counterpoints. if you're serious, then you need to play on a regulation 4x6 table instead of the seatback tray table on whatever airline you normally game on.

Admiral Arkright wrote:Now, to be fair to all sides, I'd have thought the discussion should have turned into a discussion on modelling options, rather then assume he's trying to screw over his opponents, but I think both sides have been guilty of escalation over essentially petty issues. Just trying to defuse things a bit.

but accusing a person of screwing over opponents with models that he doesn't even own is easier than logically debating the rules. besides, repeating something that's incorrect on the internet makes it right eventually, right sid? either way sid, you can feel free to lie and attribute whatever ideas or motives you want to me as i've gotten what i wanted from this thread (an answer to the question which is that dakka is divided on the issue so i won't do it) and don't feel the need to argue about something that i don't even own and may never. btw, congrats, you're the second person on my ignore list!

@warboss: Sorry, can't help myself. I have to ask, was I your first? Was it as good for you as it was for me?

Also @Warboss: Zee diagram, she means nozeeing!


NOZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEING!

troll

I'm not trolling. I'm a really good spammer but I don't troll people.

I'll admit that maybe I got a little carried away, but personally I think you're more guilty of trolling than I am. Some of your comments seemed to serve no other purpose than to try and egg me on further.

In any case this is starting to get old, I think we need to stop. Or at least I'm going to after this.

1) I wasn't trying to imply that emergency disembarkation in general didn't happen, I was talking specifically about the valkyrie. I think it would be rare that all the exits on a valkyrie are blocked because it's so large, but in the event that they ever were then you deploy anywhere within 2" of the hull like it says.

2) Fair enough.

3) How big is your Guard army anyway? How many cases do you carry now?

4) I know it sounded kinda bad, but it's honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone speak ill of rare earth magnets. So you can see why I'd be a bit skeptical after hearing people constantly sing their praises.

5-6) I'll admit I might be putting words in your mouth in that case. Usually people don't consider the wings or tail part of the hull and maintain that the hull is strictly the fuselage. I just assumed you were in that camp based on your comments even though you never brought it up.

7) Now that I'll have to call BS on, there's no way in hell you can say that "only half" of the 40k community thinks the tail counts as hull. You can't judge that based on the Dakka poll alone because Dakka only represents a small fraction of the people who play this game.

Also, why are you assuming they "serve no purpose"? Is it so hard to believe that GW could possibly intend for a vehicle's size to be taken into consideration when fielding it? Even though the tail basically does nothing, you can't just ignore it and pretend it isn't there, especially when it makes up such a considerable part of the vehicle. I honestly believe this is meant to help balance it out, the valkyrie is just too good for it's point cost otherwise. The only real downside to fielding one is the huge amount of space it takes up and the guarantee that you'll almost never get cover on the average board.

But this is ultimately pointless. I'm obviously not budging on the issue and neither are you. And the odds of this actually being an issue on the average board are slim, because I'll more often than not be able to see the entire vehicle anyway. So...I've pretty much wasted my time bitching about nothing, lmao.

8) It was just a thought. I live too far away to indulge in pick-up games, so whenever I play 40k I'm usually with my brother.

9) But still, IG has always been a horde army. I'm just saying, if transport was an issue for me I personally wouldn't have picked the largest model-count army in the game.

If it were me though, honestly, I'd just buy bigger cases. Yeah I know, I'm not made of money either, but if safety and convenience is that important then it might be a worthwhile investment, because I really don't think the GW cases can cut it in this case. If the valkyrie will even fit in the large case, you're likely only going to be able to fit two of them all by themselves in one case, but I don't actually have a GW case so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

I'm interested in hearing if it works out or not.

10) Nuh-uh, I'm talking about the valkyrie.

11) "Unseen"? willydstyle was one of the first posters in the thread and he said as much himself. Not everyone that votes in the poll posts in the topic, so I'd say it's a fair bet that there are people not posting who also didn't vote. But admittedly I'm just making a big assumption.

12) I guess it's fair to say I misunderstood then. Honestly I had no idea what you were talking about, I wasn't trying to lie/troll/whatever the feth.

13) The only reason I bothered to post in this thread is because you declared that people who viewed the tail as part of the hull and wouldn't allow you to chop it off as hypocrites if they allowed any conversion whatsoever.

I came into the thread with the intent to defend my own personal viewpoint since I felt as if I was being called out, so if I came out swinging that was why.

14) It was an exaggeration, I was trying to be funny at that point and I guess I failed.

btw, congrats, you're the second person on my ignore list!

And funnily enough I don't read this until I've already wasted an hour of my time typing up this ridiculously long fething post.

In any case, congrats on letting a Dakka poll make up your mind for you, I guess. Personally though I think you should have just stopped being cheap and gotten a case big enough for them. I'm not made of money either, but face facts, this is an expensive hobby and if you really cared that much about safety and convenience, spending a little money on a nice ride for your valkyries wouldn't have been a problem. I'm as broke as they come at the moment but I still plan on getting a nice big case for mine.

I still think the tail counts as hull. No, maybe not literally, but considering that there's a huge chunk of the model considered "invisible" if you do take it literally, I think an exception should be made. And yeah, in case anyone is wondering, that's how I would play with mine, too. If you can see the tail or a wing then it can be shot (though if more than half the model is obscured I get cover ).

@Gwar!: What did that diagram mean, anyway? Were you just making a joke at my expense or was it literally bs? I mean warboss's, not the one you posted.

Gwar! wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:On models being half-on/half-off:

GW Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q. Can models move off the table?
A. Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!

Don't know why I didn't think to check before when it came up but I think that clearly shows you it's not possible to play with half of a model phasing out of existence.

Half off != Off.

Actually while your statement is true, I think you are missing something there.

A model that has part of it on the table, and part of it off the table makes the following statements true
A) The model is on the table
B) The model is off the table.

Both are valid statements. It does not matter that a model half-off is also half-on, because you are making a status true that must remain false, which is status B.

...exactly! That's totally what I meant to say before.

Admiral Arkright wrote:Y'know, it's threads like this that make me glad I don't play in competative games. How I choose to model my vehicles and miniatures is down to me, and what I think looks cool.

If I wanted to use the Valk model as a base for some other conversion, you can bet it's not because I'm thinking "Oooo! That means I can exploit the TLOS rules!", it's because I'm thinking "Heh, that'll look sweet!"

(IMHO)

I modelled all my previous SW army as true scale. So everything was bigger, Much bigger, even the RHino's and the Preds, The preds were massive, nearly as big as a bane blade. This caused alot of problems as they could not relistcly hide behind cover as if I had use the original size.

I just agreed with my opponent before hand that the last 2 inches of the pred did not count and to ignore that. As for the height we both agreed to leave that as it was.

Gwar! wrote:@warboss: Sorry, can't help myself. I have to ask, was I your first? Was it as good for you as it was for me?

no, no (if you mean my ignored list). if that was the case i wouldn't have welcomed you back. i view you like gandalf views gollum: you serve a valuable purpose in answering RAW questions truthfully even if you occasionally bite off a finger while doing so. if you mean my MS Paint "artwork", yes, you were my forum first (with the 300 RAW vs RAI pic).

Lets see....to start with lets talk about ease of the conversion.

You are already cutting off the tail, so that step is going to be done either way.

Next one has to either cobble together some sort of patch over the hole so that the model still has some sort of appeal; or else one uses all of that empty space to make a magnetic attachment point. Usually magnets in 40k are trouble because they have to be inserted into tight spots and have to be fiddled around to make them fit just so. Here we have plenty fo space.

Worried about the strength of the magnets holding? Try filling much of the rest of hole with green stuff and inserting a steel rod or two. Then fill up most of the rest of the other hole with clay or green stuff, leaving just a couple insertion points for the rods. The plastic is likely to break before the new connection would fail.

So the conversion is easier than most because we have more room to work with, the cutting step is going to be done either way, and we have to create no new visible parts. The room available allows for a truly strong connection as well, far stronger than most such.



As far as the tail of the valk bumping into things...well yes. Try fielding 9 valks with tails, for that matter just lay out where one squadron of three would be able to fit. Then layout where three of your cropped versions would fit. Makes a major difference on how they can be placed, doesnt it?

As I said before, one of the very few disadvantages the valk/ vendetta has is its large footprint. Modelling for advantage removes this problem, and suddenly fielding 9 of those suckers becomes a viable option. Running flocks of the full size models puts real restraints on where your army can be deployed and move. Cutting off those tails suddenly makes the models MUCH easier to play.


I wouldnt let someone use one of the cut down models locally because then there is no arguement to stop someone from showing up the next week with 9 of them. It just removes the one drawback from the best vehicle in the game.



Sliggoth


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Had this thought just a moment too late, since this model gives us a really nice bit of room to work with it might make sense to not use magnets at all for this connection. Take a trip to the hardware store and pick up a bit of plastic plumbing pipe. That stuff connects with a slip joint, so just glue a piece into each end of the model and then slip the pipes together...rock solid connection. Can use a magnet inside the pipe if one plans on slinging the model around wildly in combat to make it lock in place, altho the pipe connection should handle all normal movement. And since its all plastic, regular glue should be fine. Easy to cut as well.


Sliggoth

I was reading about the GW and INAT FAQ regarding the valk, and there is a definition on what constitutes the "hull" of the model, and it definitely includes the tail..thus if you clip it you are reducing the size of the "hull" as defined by the FAQ....

warboss wrote:i don't own any valks and may never so i'm not gaining any modelling advantage by using this conversion.

So: modeling advice irrelevant, rules research irrelevant, thread irrelevant.

Thanks for playing.

Now moved from "hmm, I wonder if I can offer advice to a fellow Guard player" to a debate about how imaginary mods on a nonexistent model may fit in cases to be purchased at a later date could effect play in future games.

Sid,

How familiar are you with the new Guard FAQ? The reason for my asking is because it has this line in the errata under the Valk section:

Access Points. The text should read:
Valkyries and Vendettas have one access point on
each side of the hull and one at the rear.

Emphasis mine. Because as we all know you can't have an object extend beyond one of it's sides, I contend that there are only one of two conclusions that can be accurately drawn from this:

1. Access points are at the tips of the wings and the far edge of the tail crosspiece.

2. The hull includes neither wings nor tail.

Now, I've read the INAT FAQ, and I'm entirely willing to respect their rulings, as they appear to fix more than they break, but from the point of view of someone who is unconcerned with third party material, I'd be interested to know how this is rationalized. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

Dracos wrote:It does not matter that a model half-off is also half-on, because you are making a status true that must remain false, which is status B.

The restriction is against moving a model off the table, which could easily invalidate this assertion.

daedalus wrote: Because as we all know you can't have an object extend beyond one of it's sides,

This is not true. An object cannot extend past all of its own sides, but a large number of things extend beyond one of its own sides.

The telling fact on the access points is the doors, though, I daresay.

kirsanth wrote:

daedalus wrote: Because as we all know you can't have an object extend beyond one of it's sides,

This is not true. An object cannot extend past all of its own sides, but a large number of things extend beyond one of its own sides.

The telling fact on the access points is the doors, though, I daresay.