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.

No, you should assume you are playing by the actual rules, unless and until a TO changes them.

Ok Nos, so Vendetta's use their base for some things, assaults, troops disembarking, etc.

Do their use their base for determining where they are on the board for terrain tests and such also? Or the entire body? It isn't outlined anywhere, if it is please tell. The whole flyer thing GW has going on right now is new, GW needs to finish fleshing out how they work.

If the model ends its move with any part of it over difficult or impassible terrain it has to take a DT test, and it cannot end its move over friendly or enemy models.
It's a skimmer and has to follow the rules for skimmers.
The only exception is that the base can be used for disembarkation and contesting objectives.
For anything else, p71 applies.

The rule actually states "Roll D6 for every vehicle that has entered, left or moved through one or more..."

And then "...if a skimmer starts or ends its move in difficult or dangerous terrain, it must take a dangerous terrain test."

So like I have been saying, does the wing, tail, or nose of a Vendetta hoving over a forest count as "entering" that forest? You're not entering it, just flying over it. My vendetta could be 3-5 inches above that forest it's flying over.

And the exceptions are my point, is this going to be another one or is this a case where the Vendetta is treated like a normal skimmer like it is some of the time?

Von - yes, exactly the same as other vehicles.

Skimmers ignore their base, except for assaults. Valks and SR are allowed to use their base for em/disem bark and contesting, and nothing else.

IF your tail is over terrain, you are "in" terrain.

You only get the exceptions listed, and nothing more. Its suprisingly simple. Otherwise with low "area" terrain you could claim your tall flying stand Falcon is not "in" the terrain, but "over" it. Its just being consistent - just because youre now 3" further up doesnt mean you arent subject to the same rules as every other vehicle. Hell, you're already allowed to contest from the base and not the hull...

I just love love love when people say things like "It's surprisingly simple."

I loved hearing the same things when the discussion over how Vendetta's contest objectives or disembark troops. And then GW made a ruling, funny how that turned out.

All I'm saying is that it is not 100% clear, right now I'm inclined to agree with you but saying that it is that way 100%, no room for discussion, or differing opinions, is a good way to look a little funny when GW arbitrarily rules the other way.

GW in its normal fashion made a new type of model but didn't bother with the rules for it, so here we sit waiting for FAQ's to clear things like this up. And thus my comment about talking to a TO, which oddly enough might not think you are the definative deciding party on GW's rules.

Yes - GW changed the rules. Amazing, that. Given they had to tehn write thsoe changes of rules into the BA codex indicates they are actual rules changes. ALmost as if they...changed the rules!!!

It IS simple, it IS clear, however people get all funny just because a model is suddenly 3" taller, and assume that means they get to ignore the inconvenient aspects of the model.

We've had people attempting to claim they shouldnt have to be "counted" as being so tall, as that is "unfair" (i cant claim cover so easily!!!) on them, that you should be able to only measure to the base for everything, as doing otherwise is "unfair" (I cant bring my reserve Valk on 6" and fire everything!!!! life is so unfair!!) on them, and so on.

Get over it. Its a taller skimmer, treat it in the exact same way WITH the exceptions and changes to the rules given, and you will find they work perfectly well in the rules.

Did I say I was the deciding party? I'm just playnig the rules in the book - which you cannot argue with (as you have failed to do so, using any rules quotes, so far this thread the assumption is you cannot) - unless and until a TO changes them, as is their prerogative. I dont mind playing houserules, as long as people know they are such.

Funny how you claim I failed to argue the point, when I believe I have. Again I'm not saying my argument is right but I am saying it could be right. You say you're playing by the rules in the book, I'm saying those rules were written before the current model existed and do not cover all aspects of it. If anything my side of this has far more creedance since GW has made multiple special rules for these models outside of the rules laid out in the rule book.

Also amuses me how you've let all of other points you've argued in the past color this discussion, since they have no bearing on this. But I can understand being annoyed after trying to constantly argue rules here on Dakka.

How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...e=true&start=2

Considering a tourney was won/lost over over models assaulting under a skimmer to a unit behind a skimmer, I think people need to re-evaluate how they follow or don't follow the rules because of convenience or trying to gain an advantage.

maaksel wrote:How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...e=true&start=2

Your link doesnt work btw. There are just a few people who hardcore hate on the IG. Nos is one of them, I still cant believe he has been making them take DT for part of the model hanging over Difficult terrain, for DT it is measured from the base. Check around to all your various faq's. GW doesnt cover it but every other one that I have seen does.

By RAW, if the Vendetta/Stormraven/Valkyrie is hanging over area terrain, it would actually be in the terrain piece(as it only has boundaries, no actual volume), nos would be right to force you to test as you are in the terrain when you cross that boundary. Remember that ruins are area terrain unless specified as a set of walls.

For hanging over rocks(or most other impassible), walls or other terrain with a clearly defined volume, no tests for hanging over, as you are not in the terrain. If you actually touch the terrain, take a test. Really no reason to start a war.

So one of those fliers passing over some shallow water is in difficult terrain? Awesome.

More dangerous than you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnME2XJYAg4

Passing? No. Landing/Stopping, yes.

Tomb King wrote:Your link doesnt work btw.

It's irrelevant anyway. Its entirely to do with a single tournament run by GW Events. NOT GW themselves. IT has no more bearing than any other local tournament.

Tomb King wrote:There are just a few people who hardcore hate on the IG. Nos is one of them,

So you'#re now into making up untruths about other people? Classy.

No, I do not "hate" on IG. What I disagree with is changing the rules for a single model because you dont like the drawbacks the modelling brings, and then claiming as you have done that these are the actual rules - when they are not.

Sorry, your undercosted, overpowered unit has SOME drawbacks - but apparently that isnt fair. Sigh.

Tomb King wrote:I still cant believe he has been making them take DT for part of the model hanging over Difficult terrain, for DT it is measured from the base.

Wrong. Again, stop passing off YOUR HOUSERULES as actual rules. Or, maybe cite something?

For vehicles, ALL vehicles, you measure to the hull. If it is a SR / Valk it has some exceptions, but these are incredibly limited. DT is not one of them. Again, please cite some rules (for the first time this thread) or acknowledge your houserule and correct your misstatement.

Tomb King wrote:Check around to all your various faq's. GW doesnt cover it but every other one that I have seen does.

And, frankly, who cares? The aqctual rules cover it very well.

vonjankmon wrote:Funny how you claim I failed to argue the point, when I believe I have. Again I'm not saying my argument is right but I am saying it could be right. You say you're playing by the rules in the book, I'm saying those rules were written before the current model existed and do not cover all aspects of it. If anything my side of this has far more creedance since GW has made multiple special rules for these models outside of the rules laid out in the rule book.

Yes, the rules cover all aspects of it. Prove they dont. You have yet to provide any rules citations to back up your position, and are thus in breach of the tenets of this forum.

THe fact GW changed the rules to cover 2 specific situations lends no credence to your side; none at all. It entirely lends credence to the idea that they didnt want any other changes to the basic ruleset made - one of which is you measure to the hull, and not the base, of a skimmer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - no, its called "you have a really, really undercosted models that hasa couple of drawbacks"

Just follow the rules and accept the limitations. Yes, if your tail is over difficult terrain, you are "in" the terrain and must test. Yes, if an objective is far in the corner, you may not be able to contest - same as nob bikers cannot claim objectives in buildings.

Its the rules. Deal with it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Tomb King wrote:I have never seen anyone argue that my wings or fins hanging over something cause terrain test or that it is illegally placed. My gaming group ruled that if the base was on then the model is on.

Which is a houserule - and is fine.

But it IS A HOUSERULE.

Tomb King wrote:I think you all are basing your analysis on this faq below:

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is
unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

That comes in to play if you have a vehicle move on into DT and it immobilizes itself before coming on fully.

The vendetta is able to completely move onto the board. I can legally place the model and it sits up right. As for vendetta's taking dangerous terrain if the tail fin is resting above DT that is hularious and i would never do it. Fortunately those rocks down there are not tall enough to hit my vendetta, even if it did land.

No, we're basing it on the rule that you measure to VEHICLES by measuring to the hull, and the vendetta / SR exceptions do NOT cover general measurement. So, if I can measure to a part of your model that is not within the 6x4 playing area, then that vehicle is NOT on the table. This means it must either move so it is on the table, or, if coming on from reserves, it is destroyed.

Sorry if this makes your undercosted, overpowered unit a *tiny* bit less OP, but the rules are the rules. Would you next ask to have a smaller base, because its unfair that your Valk is so high up? Theyre logically consistent - you want a rules change to benefit your model, just because your model has some drawbacks.

As for the monolith - a skimmer may not finish on top of another unit. After having moved the skimmer, If you look from above, and cannot see the unit, then youre movement there3 was illegal. No exceptions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Your link doesnt work btw.

It's irrelevant anyway. Its entirely to do with a single tournament run by GW Events. NOT GW themselves. IT has no more bearing than any other local tournament.

Tomb King wrote:There are just a few people who hardcore hate on the IG. Nos is one of them,

So you'#re now into making up untruths about other people? Classy.

No, I do not "hate" on IG. What I disagree with is changing the rules for a single model because you dont like the drawbacks the modelling brings, and then claiming as you have done that these are the actual rules - when they are not.

Sorry, your undercosted, overpowered unit has SOME drawbacks - but apparently that isnt fair. Sigh.

Tomb King wrote:I still cant believe he has been making them take DT for part of the model hanging over Difficult terrain, for DT it is measured from the base.

Wrong. Again, stop passing off YOUR HOUSERULES as actual rules. Or, maybe cite something?

For vehicles, ALL vehicles, you measure to the hull. If it is a SR / Valk it has some exceptions, but these are incredibly limited. DT is not one of them. Again, please cite some rules (for the first time this thread) or acknowledge your houserule and correct your misstatement.

Tomb King wrote:Check around to all your various faq's. GW doesnt cover it but every other one that I have seen does.

And, frankly, who cares? The aqctual rules cover it very well.

vonjankmon wrote:Funny how you claim I failed to argue the point, when I believe I have. Again I'm not saying my argument is right but I am saying it could be right. You say you're playing by the rules in the book, I'm saying those rules were written before the current model existed and do not cover all aspects of it. If anything my side of this has far more creedance since GW has made multiple special rules for these models outside of the rules laid out in the rule book.

Yes, the rules cover all aspects of it. Prove they dont. You have yet to provide any rules citations to back up your position, and are thus in breach of the tenets of this forum.

THe fact GW changed the rules to cover 2 specific situations lends no credence to your side; none at all. It entirely lends credence to the idea that they didnt want any other changes to the basic ruleset made - one of which is you measure to the hull, and not the base, of a skimmer.

hmm, must just seem like a lot of hate on the vendetta/valkyrie. Maybe I was making up untruths about my over powered undercosted unit, that or i was merely provided with a consistent discontent for a single model an made an assumption based on what I had seen.

SO, still not accepting your houserules are just that?

Or are you just going to continue with the personal attacks?

nosferatu1001 wrote:SO, still not accepting your houserules are just that?

Or are you just going to continue with the personal attacks?

I dont believe that was a personal attack, merely an observation of your motives. As for coming on from reserve I will agree that it has to move on the full 12". The only thing I wont agree with is the tail fin being slightly in terrain. That is a bit of a stretch. Even if the model lands, which it can based on the skimmers rule, the tail fin would not be touching the terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RAW- a skimmer must land, therefore everytime you move your vendetta/Valk/stormraven it must land on the table lol.

As much as I acknowledge that these are the rules as written in the rulebook (and then choose to ignore them as silly and unintended), I don't believe Tomb King was making a personal attack.

nosferatu1001, I've noticed that you often get extremely heated in these discussions, and your comments take on an ever more caustic and bitter tone. You have stated your peace, there is no need for all this "ooh, I'm sorry your overpowered underpriced crutch model etc. etc. has a slight drawback" snark and inference that this is some diabolical attempt to wheedle additional advantage. Your argument at that point becomes ad hominem, and thus incredibly difficult to stomach whether you are right or wrong.

None of these technicalities ever occurred to me or anyone in my diverse group of opponents. We just played what seemed reasonable and never had a problem, but from the vitriol in this thread, you'd think we're all nefarious cheater scumbags.

Tk, I read that rule as "no holding it above the table making 'WHOOSH' noises". Yes, I do that.

Put the base on the table and keep playing. If the wings/tail over lap terrain, do the appropriate tests, possibly while remarking how stupid a rule it is, and proceed to unload your payload at the enemy. Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you do anything else, you are a communist. Go play with your turnips, communist.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Tk, I read that rule as "no holding it above the table making 'WHOOSH' noises". Yes, I do that.

Put the base on the table and keep playing. If the wings/tail over lap terrain, do the appropriate tests, possibly while remarking how stupid a rule it is, and proceed to unload your payload at the enemy. Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you do anything else, you are a communist. Go play with your turnips, communist.

-cgmckenzie

lol just arguing how silly 100% RAW can be. We dont need these crazy bases. We can land

It does have to be on the base. You can only take it off the base if it's destroyed or immobilized.

Honestly, the ratio of body to base is pretty simila, comparing the Valk/Vend to the Falcon or Wave Serpent. The Valk & its base are bigger, but the Falcon and Wave Serpent have always been a lot bigger than their base. And we've always used the body of the skimmer, like every other vehicle, for difficult terrain and for measuring movement, shooting, tank shock, etc.

TK - by ascribing personal motives, and suggesting that I am not arguing based on rules (which I am), then you are engaging in a personal attack.

Omegus - however the point is it ISNT a technicality. It's a basic rule. It's a rule that has been in place (measuring to hulls) for 15 years! Yet, as soon as a new model, bigger than people are used to, comes out - suddenly the rules need to change? Or the rules are just a "technicality"? It's trivialising a basic rule of the game, and essnentially arguing from a "i dont like it" persepective.

Now, in a house rule situation- thats fine. There really isnt a problem with that. Dressing it up as real rules, in a rules forum which is designated as a place to discuss rules? Not so good.

And yes - you DO have to place the base on the tbale, you dont get to land.

You will note that I haven't been arguing against your point and have conceded that these are the rules as written. I was just pointing out that being an ass about it doesn't make you more right, it just makes you an ass.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - by ascribing personal motives, and suggesting that I am not arguing based on rules (which I am), then you are engaging in a personal attack.

Omegus - however the point is it ISNT a technicality. It's a basic rule. It's a rule that has been in place (measuring to hulls) for 15 years! Yet, as soon as a new model, bigger than people are used to, comes out - suddenly the rules need to change? Or the rules are just a "technicality"? It's trivialising a basic rule of the game, and essnentially arguing from a "i dont like it" persepective.

Now, in a house rule situation- thats fine. There really isnt a problem with that. Dressing it up as real rules, in a rules forum which is designated as a place to discuss rules? Not so good.

And yes - you DO have to place the base on the tbale, you dont get to land.

Okay, RAW it can hover in the air and must land everyturn. That means I have to land my vendetta. Where does it say it has to stay on its base. If we want to argue RAW lets argue RAW. We have all been playing them wrong by not having them land.

Oh, btw stop comparing falcon's and such to vendetta's. Two very different models. The vendetta has been faq'ed to use the base in some instances where the falcon and other such skimmers havent.

I get why Nos can get "heated" during these discussions on this forum as in most cases it feels like talking to a wall. This particular thread is a prime example.

It starts with a rules question and this question is quickly answered by providing a reference to specific rules.

What then follows is several other posters bringing houserules and "it's not fair" into the thread and using those as arguments why the original rule should not be played like it is written down in the rulebook.

When these arguments fail, other arguments are brought along to try to use these to make it feel like the first argument should also be reconsidered. The fact of the matter is that the original question was if Vendetta's could move onto the table with part of it hanging over, which they cannot according to the current rules. Then the point of a skimmer ending its movement hanging over area terrain having to take a DT was added and answered.

Last attempt to derail the thread is quite the feat from Tomb King by trying to argue that "landing" means having to remove the base of a model. Sure it might be a fun exercise to go into that argument as well, but it seems rather silly and pointless as at this point it is merely a last ditch attempt to find a reason why NOT following the rules of the previous questions would be preferable to actually using the rules in a rules argument.

The only thing I can suggest is for some of the people to not confuse the "You Make The Call" section with the "Proposed Rules" section. The part we are now in is reserved for answering rules questions based on the rules we have, not the rules we would want to have.

You only remove it from the base when immobilized or destroyed. And only then if you haven't glued it on/really don't want to. There is a caveat in the rules explaining that an immobilized or wrecked skimmer still on its stand is either a)still working but has lost horizontal thrust and turning ability, or b) a fire wreck floating above the battlefield, dropping molten slag and wreckage to the innocent guardsmen below.

So no, at no point do you actually have to remove it from the stand. If you want to, go for it but I find the waterfall of molten death a far more entertaining prospect on the table top.

-cgmckenzie

PS-sorry about no page quote, I just got back from my FLGS and all my books are packed. But it is in there!!

Tomb King wrote:Okay, RAW it can hover in the air and must land everyturn. That means I have to land my vendetta. Where does it say it has to stay on its base. If we want to argue RAW lets argue RAW. We have all been playing them wrong by not having them land.

The RAW is quite clear that you set the model down at the end of the move, on its base. And that you only remove the base (if it hasn't been glued) if it's immobilized or wrecked.

Tomb King wrote:Oh, btw stop comparing falcon's and such to vendetta's. Two very different models.

Not at all. One's just a bit bigger & higher. Both use a flying base of much smaller surface area then the hull/body of the model. This means, and has meant for literally over a decade, that you can easily have the body of a Falcon or Wave serpent over difficult terrain while its base is clearly outside of said terrain. No kidding, I've been taking those difficult terrain tests, or keeping the body of my grav tanks out of terrain, whenever I've used my Eldar for more than ten years now. Literally hundreds of games. Same with other Eldar players.

Both Wave Serpents and Valkyries, like all vehicles, have all measurements made to and from the body of the model. In 5th edition skimmers in general have one exception- that enemies may assault the base if they can't reach the hull. Valkyries got a couple more exceptions by way of a FAQ when GW realized that their height was a problem. NOT their size, mind you. The only reasons you measure to and from the base for dis/embarkation and for objectives are because of the height.

Tomb King wrote:Okay, RAW it can hover in the air and must land everyturn. That means I have to land my vendetta.

The rules don't say that it lands. They say that it has to be placed on the table. If it has a base, that means putting the base down on the table.

Where does it say it has to stay on its base.

It doesn't need to say that it has to stay on the base... to remove the base, you would need a rule that says to remove it.

Oh, btw stop comparing falcon's and such to vendetta's. Two very different models. The vendetta has been faq'ed to use the base in some instances where the falcon and other such skimmers havent.

As Mannahnin mentioned, that's down to the height of the flight stem, not the size of the model. Specifically, without that FAQ it would be impossible to dis/embark on the Valkyrie or Stormraven unless you park it beside a 4" tall rock.