Valkyrie/Vendetta/Stormraven - What counts as "hull"

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.

**vonjankmon**

Or that's having played GW games for close to 20 years and knowing that the kind of thing you think of as highly unlikely is exactely how GW has worked for the past 20 years.

Not saying your wrong Nos but seriously if you honestly think GW thinks of this stuff all the time you really need to take a step back.

**Jidmah**

Tomb King wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
vonjankmon wrote:Yet to see anyone disprove Yaks possible "interpretation" of whether a flyer is "in" or "above" terrain.

I do have to say I admire some peoples self assurance that they are 100% right, especially given GW's poor rules writing and amazing ability to oddly interpret their own rules. I mean I've been up front that I'm really just kind of playing devils advocat here, I don't really have any idea what GW intended and their rules really don't make it entirely clear to me either way right now.

Just pick a battlewagon(or any random box shaped vehicle without funky rules) instead of a vendetta. You could really argue that a battlewagon can never really be IN terrain, unless you pick the piece of terrain up off the table and pretend the vehicle is inside a wall/tree/rock. Usually the vehicles is on top(above) the terrain, just like the vendetta, and it's really hard to believe that a battlewagon or a landraider would destroy one of their tracks(which usually deflect dedicated anti-tank fire and artillery with ease) in a crater or the mentioned river crossing. However, that's the rules, and they don't change if you put that exact vehicle on a flying stand. Solid pieces of terrain are defined no further than by their actual volume, but area terrain is defined by a border. If your skimmer crosses that border, it's inside terrain, no matter how far up.

Ok, your argument is null by the fact that how easy a vehicle can throw a track has nothing to do with its armor value. An M1 Abrams can take a direct hit from anti-tank fire but can still throw a track driving over some rubble that wouldnt harm a humvee.

What nos is arguing is that we play a 2d game in a 3d world. If anything overlaps its DT. UNFORTUNATELY, the rules are too vague to cover models like Vendetta's which is the REASON why people interpret how it affects them so differently. To say you are 100% right and there is no room for other interpretations is a little naive and you should really broaden your thought process before continuing to proclaim such things. The volume of ruling going against you should deter you enough to play it on your own/your TO's Interpretations because in the end THAT IS WHAT IT IS. <<< EMPHASIS ON THE PERIOD! If the TO says it is this way, if there is a house rule that says it is this way, or if your opponent agree's its this way then IT IS THIS WAY, No use in arguing over something that is out of your area of control. Though, ide like to see you go up to a GT judge and tell them they dont know how to run the tournament. Or the Vegas tournament which is like the finals for the U.S. tournament circuit if I am correct. Ide say its pretty clear how it should be ruled. I just ask you BROADEN your thought process and use a LITTLE RAI, and than proceed to have fun.

I wont comment further here as the thread no longer matters to any of my gaming area's or local GT's. Let the stubborn be stubborn and mad while the rest of us enjoy this game we love.

That's a real constructive answer. Ignoring all of the rules arguments and calling people stubborn, because a totally void RL comparison is off, is really the way to show you're right. I guess your argument is null by the fact, that you used caps.
I assume you didn't read any of my posts at all, because I'm not arguing the same point nos is. You entire post is basically yelling "Lalala, I can't hear you!". There is no room to argue in RAW, it clearly defines that a skimmer above a forest has to test for terrain. There is plenty of room for changing rules to make your game more fun. If your TO decideds to write his own rulebook, that's out of your hand, so you should hold true to your own opinion and never again discuss any rules. Ever.

You might want to check the rules of YMDC, especially #4.

**nosferatu1001**

vonjankmon wrote:Or that's having played GW games for close to 20 years and knowing that the kind of thing you think of as highly unlikely is exactely how GW has worked for the past 20 years.

Logical fallacy in your argument there

vonjankmon wrote:Not saying your wrong Nos but seriously if you honestly think GW thinks of this stuff all the time you really need to take a step back.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say they think of this "all the time"? No. What I DID say is that, given they were asked a LOT of questions about the Valk, INCLUDING terrain, yet they only chose to Errata the small exceptions they did, is it not less likely that they entirely forgot about everything else?

No, it isnt. It fails even a basic application of Occams Razor.

Given no other information, the ONLY exceptions to the rules for vehicles (and skimmers specifically) are those listed. That's it. Nothing else, UNLESS you houserule it.

Which isnt the point of YMDC...

**cgmckenzie**

It is incredibly simply, amigos:

RAW, Valkryies operate exactly like skimmers except for assaults/passengers. You measure to the hull for everything except those 2. If it is above the terrain, it is in the terrain.

Feel free to use any other house rules or variations for GT or wherever(I personally do) but until they enact rules for fliers in regular 40K, they are really tall skimmers, nothing more or less.

As stupid as it sounds, it is part of the game we have foolishly decided to play.

-cgmckenzie

**jbunny**

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it isnt. It fails even a basic application of Occams Razor.

First Occams Razor is not irrefutable logic.

Second It also does not say "The simplest explianation is mostly likely the correct one". The razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

**nosferatu1001**

I never said it was.

However, given no other information than we currently have, the explanation that "GW entirely forgot about the valkyrie, despite writing a FAq covering it AND then writing those same rules in the GK and BA codex" is, frankly, awful.

**jbunny**

But if the question came up so many times then why did GW not just say "If the wing are over rocks it makes a DT test"?

**ElCheezus**

GW constantly forgets to cover it's bases when it comes to rules, Codecies, FAQs, and everything else. It woudn't surprise me in the least if they plumb forgot to address the issue about Vend/Valk/Raven being above terrain.

Does that mean it's exactly what happened? No, that's why it's a logical fallacy to assume so. But that doesn't mean it didn't, either.

However, it's true that without reason to except it from the usual rules, we shoudl follow them. Anything else would be conjecture and RAI.

I'm curious about this idea of benig above area terrain rather than in it. I think it's nos that's been saying area terrain is 2 dimensional, and extends upwards indefinitely. Is there a reference for this? I didn't see it in the BRB.

**nosferatu1001**

Because otherwise noone is ever "in" terrain.

**ElCheezus**

So then a skimmer can never start or end it's move in Difficult Terrain, never causing a DT check?

**cgmckenzie**

Area terrain has no vertical limit. It is defined by a border on the table, so being above it counts as being in it.

-cgmckenzie

**ElCheezus**

cgmckenzie wrote:Area terrain has no vertical limit. It is defined by a border on the table, so being above it counts as being in it.

-cgmckenzie

Reference? I coudln't find anything supporting that claim.

**Sanguinary Dan**

For a very long time GW has suffered from issues caused by that incestuous horror known as in-house play testing. Even when something is murky to us the folks at GW know exactly what the author was intending since they were effectively sitting there while he wrote it. So they never think to clarify what goes to print since they saw no issue in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But to go back on topic, would it take an incredible leap in logic or "break the game" to say that any model on a Valkyrie flight stand uses the base of the stand for all purposes other than LoS/shooting? Of course not. Did GW do that in the 5e rules? No. Because there was no such animal when Alessio wrote the rules. The only part of this that is a giant fail on GW's part is that (In the, what... Nearly four years since the IG book was released?) they haven't handled it in a simple, logical way. No, we have to worry about who can pass under the wings and come up with some truly shoulder popping reaches about why an a/c flying over the battlefield can't have part of it's tail overhang a trench.

As with all the continent sized gray areas of this game, the folks you game with and the tournaments you play in will determine what those rules actually mean, regardless of what they "say". But if you think that flying, armored vehicles really should need to worry more about ending a game turn over a destroyed garden shed than crossing over that shed during the turn...

**nosferatu1001**

4 years? 2, if that.

5th ed is even 4 years old.

In addition: not only is there the valkyrie, there is the Stormraven. With EXACTLY the same exceptions as the Valk. Exactly the same.

So: would it be game breaking to arbitrarily change rules you dont like? No, not particularly. However why change them when they work PERFECTLY well in the current rules? What purpose does it serve apart from taking an undercosted unit and making it slightly better for no justifiable reason

**jbunny**

nosferatu1001 wrote:4 years? 2, if that.

5th ed is even 4 years old.

In addition: not only is there the valkyrie, there is the Stormraven. With EXACTLY the same exceptions as the Valk. Exactly the same.

So: would it be game breaking to arbitrarily change rules you dont like? No, not particularly. However why change them when they work PERFECTLY well in the current rules? What purpose does it serve apart from taking an undercosted unit and making it slightly better for no justifiable reason

Please do not use the words "Stormraven" and "Undercosted" together. They belong nowhere near each other.

**nosferatu1001**

Vendetta is undercosted. That has also been the theme of this thread, so i would havbe thought the context was clear

**ElCheezus**

I don't see any support for your current point of view on this, Nos. The best definition I'm finding for something being in terrain is on pg 22, in the bullet "Inside area terrain." It indicates that if models have their bases in the terrain, they have cover. This is the closest I've found to determining when something is "in" terrain.

Unless you can find more support, I think what little evidence there is (which honestly isn't much) actually points to judging whether you're "in" terrain to be determined by the base.

**cgmckenzie**

Pg 13 and 14 in the BRB discuss area terrain as being defined by the borders on the table. You can have things peppered about in it to change up LOS but the terrain is still that column defined by the borders.

If a tau tank were to have part of it hanging over the terrain border, it would take a check. There are no special rules for the 'flyers' that change that simple because they are tall.

-cgmckenzie

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:I don't see any support for your current point of view on this, Nos. The best definition I'm finding for something being in terrain is on pg 22, in the bullet "Inside area terrain." It indicates that if models have their bases in the terrain, they have cover. This is the closest I've found to determining when something is "in" terrain.

Unless you can find more support, I think what little evidence there is (which honestly isn't much) actually points to judging whether you're "in" terrain to be determined by the base.

BRB pg 71 under measuring distance for skimmers "The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both."

-cgmckenzie

**Sanguinary Dan**

nosferatu1001 wrote:4 years? 2, if that.

5th ed is even 4 years old.

In addition: not only is there the valkyrie, there is the Stormraven. With EXACTLY the same exceptions as the Valk. Exactly the same.

So: would it be game breaking to arbitrarily change rules you dont like? No, not particularly. However why change them when they work PERFECTLY well in the current rules? What purpose does it serve apart from taking an undercosted unit and making it slightly better for no justifiable reason

I could swear that the copyright date of my IG Codex is 2008. Hang on. I'll go double check. Well, what do you know? It is. Let me see what it is on the Valkyrie's box. Shocking! Also 2008. And since neither the book nor model magically appeared out of thin air on the day of release I'd say that GW had at least 4 years to work out the interactions between the Valkyrie, it's base/height and the game rules.

And if they work so perfectly why is there this thread and probably dozens like it all over the web? Wether or not those flyers are costed properly has about as much to do with the rule as the color of my hair, so why even bring it up?

**cgmckenzie**

Most recent edition for C:IG is July 2009(I literally just checked). The last trademark before that for GW was in 2008, so that is the trademark date printed on the books for GW(GamesWorkshop 2000-2008).

BTW, why does this matter?

-cgmckenzie

**ElCheezus**

Right, area terrain isn't defined by actual objects, it's defined by an outline on the table. I'm with you on that. I don't see how that means that it extends upwards indefinitely.

Thought experiement: Let's say you have a tall building, and the top is considered to be clear. Let's also say that around the building there is area terrain represented by razor wire, bushes, trees, whatever. If you have a skimmer that sits easily on the roof, but hangs over the edge, is it in difficult terrain? If so, wouldn't it theoretically be able to be hit by blast markers and templates aimed at the ground, or assaulted from the ground, since that's the level of the terrain (and it's considered in the terrain)? The hull is both "over" the area terrain and sitting sable on clear ground. This could be done with a regular vehicle, as well. I think treating "over" as being "in" has unfortunate repercussions.

If we consider something to be "in" terrain only if the base or the hull is in contact with the object or area, I think the game behaves exactly as we expect it to in every area except when a skimmer has part of it's hull hanging over area terrain with it's base outside. Other definitions seem lead to weird situations that don't make sense within the game's own framework.

**cgmckenzie**

Yeah, it would be in difficult terrain. If they defined it as only being the ground and only things touching it were affected, then I would agree with you.

However, there is no depth stated for AT, so you can't start excluding models from it because you want to and claim it to be the rules.

Skimmers are measured to the hull, not the base. The base is ignored, so all terrain checks are counted from the hull of the skimmer. Vendettas are skimmers, so terrain checks are measured to their hulls as well.

Just because it is on the top of a flying stem doesn't mean it gets to ignore rules. They need to FAQ or errata it to make that happen.

-cgmckenzie

**ElCheezus**

They don't define the height of area terrain. I assume that means you have to be touching it to be in it. You assume that it's indefinitely high. We both have the same amount of support for our view.

Obviously my "thought experiment" doesn't prove anything, really. But since our interpretations really have the same amout of rules support, it's worth examining their consequences. I think the interpretation of area terrain of indeterminate height leads to some akward situations, while using the base and/or hull actual points of contact to determine whether something is in terrain to be more in line with everything else in the rules.

That's good enough for me, honestly, unless we can find more rules support for either side.

**cgmckenzie**

But skimmers ignore the bases for movement and everything except assaults. So it would be impossible for skimmers to ever be in area terrain by your "they have to touch it" definition. Yet in the rules, it says that if they stop in terrain, they must take a terrain test.

Skimmers will always be above terrain unless they bump into a tree or rock formation sticking up. Since skimmer height varies, terrain height varies. The rules don't say that "all skimmers except really tall ones take terrain tests when in terrain."

Just because a skimmer is taller than the rest doesn't excuse it from the rest of the skimmer rules. This has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread. Unless you have rules indicating that they treat terrain differently than other skimmers, they do not. Simple as that.

-cgmckenzie

**vonjankmon**

All previous skimmers used the old clear round flight stands, the Storm Raven and Valk/Vend use the new flight base, which is an actual base instead of just the tiny stand.

This is really why GW needs to clear this up, the Raven and Valk are new models that don't easily follow the previous rules for the game.

**tgf**

Technically aircraft do not have hulls, they have fuselages. You can't actually shoot a valkyrie or a vendetta by the rules. For our house games we count the wings as part of the hull.

**cgmckenzie**

You could make the argument that since they are low orbit capable craft, they have hulls. That would make them space ships, and space ships have hulls(if anything SCI-FI is to be listened to)

-cgmckenzie

**nosferatu1001**

vonjankmon wrote:All previous skimmers used the old clear round flight stands, the Storm Raven and Valk/Vend use the new flight base, which is an actual base instead of just the tiny stand.

This is really why GW needs to clear this up, the Raven and Valk are new models that don't easily follow the previous rules for the game.

Both are bases. That argument is, well its not even an argument its so easily thrown out.

Both models EASILY fit within the current rules - just follow the 2 exceptions for em/disembark and contesting, and the same rules everyone else follows for, well, everything else. Arbitrarily changing the rules isnt needed

ElCheezus - then the vehicle rules tell you to ignore the base and measure to the hull. So something is "in" terrain if its base is "in" terrain, therefore you are "in" terrain if your hull is in terrain, and you are "in" area terrain if you are inside the boundary - under any other interpretation Skimmers never take any terrain checks.

Sanguinary Dan - so, codex IG is NOT 4 years old, the published date makes it AT MOST 3 years old. And theyve have that long to only FAQ / Errata the current exceptions - lending even MORE weight to the idea that these are the ONLY exceptions needed.

**tgf**

cgmckenzie wrote:You could make the argument that since they are low orbit capable craft, they have hulls. That would make them space ships, and space ships have hulls(if anything SCI-FI is to be listened to)

-cgmckenzie

Good point ships do have hulls.

**ElCheezus**

nosferatu1001 wrote:ElCheezus - then the vehicle rules tell you to ignore the base and measure to the hull. So something is "in" terrain if its base is "in" terrain, therefore you are "in" terrain if your hull is in terrain, and you are "in" area terrain if you are inside the boundary - under any other interpretation Skimmers never take any terrain checks.

Yes, you ignore the base for measuring distances. Being in terrain requires no measuring, however.

So, this is my problem. On the one hand, we have area terrain being defined as indefinitely tall with absolutely no rules backup. On the other, we have no other way for a skimmer to be in terrain, if we ignore the base because of pg 71.

If we allow area terrain to be entirely different than anything else in the game, weird things happen. (what happens when the roof of a building is area terrain, but the ground under it isn't; like a building on stilts. Is the ground suddenly area terrain by virtue of the unlimited z-axis of the area terrain above it?) So not only does it not have a basis in the rules, it would be a bad design choice.

On the other hand, we could assume that the bit on pg 71 doesn't apply. I tend to think that the paragraph is delineating the difference between vehicles and infantry. Usually you measure to the base with infantry, and the BRB didn't want you trying to measure to the base instead of the hull on skimmers for range or something. Under that view, the world is happy again because we can use the base to determine if something is in terrain.

Without doing one of those two things, skimmers will never be considered in terrain. I think one is clearly a better choice than the other, both in terms of the rules and in terms of good game design.