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.

Frazzled wrote:Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!

Et tu, Frazzled?

Drat, just bought one today!

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Drat, just bought one today!

You made baby jesus cry.

Solution number 1 to all rules issues.


Flat out all the time, and grav chute your troops in. Whine over.

While half of me wants to beg for this thread to be locked for earlier deviations, the other half of me has to contribute something worthwhile.

I've heard it time and time again, both from forums and from local gamers who have had the opportunity to travel abroad: Warhammer is a totally different game in Europe than over here in the United States. To European players, the game is about having a good time, building and painting cool models, and playing what they want to field in order to have a fun game. In the US, we would analyze the rulebook with our tape measures to find some hidden meaning in the spacing between models, trying to find the secret precise distance at which we achieve minimum damage from a flame template while having the maximum chance of being completely missed by a scattered ordinance template. Forgive me for the generalization as I'm sure there are casual gamers in the US and rules lawyers abroad, but this sort of rules debate largely only occurs here in the states. Across the pond (you know, where the people design and test this stuff), nobody gave a second thought to whether or not you could get out of the thing in a normal fashion, and just said "Ooooh! Cool! I want IG now!", which is exactly what it was intended for, to sell models.

The Valkyrie was not intended to require its own ruleset or a new interpretation of the existing rules. It wasn't intended to be the harbinger of doom that cries out "I'm here, do you want me to roll my dice or just let you pick up your models?", nor was it put in the game as a point-sink that can't let out its troops or contest objectives while simultaneously hovering out of menta range. It looks cool. It's fluffy. It's the sort of thing any casual gamer would swoon over and make little 'dakka dakka, pew pew pew' noises in the back of their head as they placed it on its flight stand, majestically swooping over the battlefield. People are going to continue to buy them for this very reason. So any sort of semi-organized "boycott" of this model isn't going to get through to GW for months when going over their sales figures, if at all. If you really want some form of FAQ, call GW, email them, contact them by some means and let them know you have questions. And if enough people pester them, you'll get an answer that you'll slap yourself in the forehead over: Disembark via grav chute (as Nobody_Holme beat me to saying), or embark and/or disembark as though it were on the table in a two-dimensional system. I mean really, what else do you expect to hear? GW to say "Ooops, you're right, it's too high up, all these models are pretty but useless"? I'm not saying that the model as-is was a good idea to introduce from a gaming standpoint, but I am saying that if you aren't willing to let troops get in and out of the transport in the same fashion as any other skimmer, or if as someone stated earlier you would decline to play someone in a friendly game just because they planned to use this model, you're officially TFG, and I'd pass on playing you after that.

Malecus wrote: if you aren't willing to let troops get in and out of the transport in the same fashion as any other skimmer, or if as someone stated earlier you would decline to play someone in a friendly game just because they planned to use this model, you're officially TFG, and I'd pass on playing you after that.

FTW

The problem here is not that people are trying to use arcane rules manipulations to prevent Valkyrie players from being able to use their vehicles, the problem is that the very clear rules in the rulebook prevent valkyrie players from using their vehicles.

I fully support coming to an agreement with your opponents ahead of time as to how to to adjudicate this SNAFU.

However, if you want to force your opponent to use house rules because you think your airplane is super sweet... well in my mind that makes you TFG.

Gandair wrote:But in other news why can't people find a workaround and stop all this "omg it's too tall" bs.

There were several potential workarounds suggested in the Valk thread in YMDC.

Malecus wrote:...but I am saying that if you aren't willing to let troops get in and out of the transport in the same fashion as any other skimmer, ...

People keep bringing this idea up, so it's probably worth mentioning that it's treating the Valk as any other skimmer that causes the problem with disembarking and objectives.

The solution is one of the various house rules proposed elsewhere. And there's a few of them, which is why some discussion is called for, rather than just plonking it on the table and assuming that the house rule you have chosen is the way that everybody should play it, as so many seem to be suggesting.

willydstyle wrote:The problem here is not that people are trying to use arcane rules manipulations to prevent Valkyrie players from being able to use their vehicles, the problem is that the very clear rules in the rulebook prevent valkyrie players from using their vehicles.

I fully support coming to an agreement with your opponents ahead of time as to how to to adjudicate this SNAFU.

However, if you want to force your opponent to use house rules because you think your airplane is super sweet... well in my mind that makes you TFG.

We get it Willystyle, you're convinced as to the RAW regarding Valkyries. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not going to make it true. You also seem convinced that "players" (I'm not sure which players) seem to want all the benefits without the limitations. Sorry to sound stupid, but what possible advantages are there to the flight stand? At best you're dealing with range for melta weapons and the like, but that's a compromise nearly all of us horrible cheaters that want to use our transports as, you know, transports are willing to accept.

By nearly all definitions, a person that wants to hold people to their own, minority, view, regardless of validity, in a social situation is closer to TFG. You're the guy that reports uniform violations of co-workers, won't go to the strip club for bachelor parties, and is generally a turd in the punch bowl. I'm not saying you're not principled, but you want to hold people to the RAW, not because it's fun, or good for the game, or makes the hobby better, but because you think it's important when most people don't. The guy that wants to play with his models the way everybody seems to agree they should be played, the way we all know GW will eventually FAQ it, the way every tournament worth anything is going to rule... that guy is TFG? Really? Because he's willing to overlook a single glitch in the rules? I don't know man, you may be closer to correct on the RAW regarding Valks, but I'd argue that you're dead wrong regarding the status of TFG in this situation.

@ Insaniak: You asked how people resolved things. It depends if it's in a game or not. In a game, we spend a few minutes to look it up, and then by I suppose local custom the superior player demures, plays as if the lesser player was correct (if equal, the actice player may not take the contested action). Afterwards, we consult the INAT, read up here, or simply rule based on what makes sense. For the Valk, we simply assumed that valk can land to disembark/embark. we have two basic principles for rules disputes: 1) A player that relied, in good faith, on a rule will be allowed to either play as he though (if part of army construction) or can take a move back (if a play mistake). 2) A rules mistake or ruling should not decide a game.

We've rarely had issues with this. Valks are a bit of a new breed, as this might be the first real RAW debate that would neuter a top notch unit, that I can recall (aside from the infamous terminator debate, which seemed to just be ignored by all involved).

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that I think that players should be able to disembark/embark from a valkyrie, and also that players should be aware of, and decide how to play the rules for the valkyrie.

I've stated my opinion on how it should be played multiple times, and I don't think I should have to add the same disclaimer to every post I make regarding how the rules interact with the vehicle.

willydstyle wrote:And you seem to be ignoring the fact that I think that players should be able to disembark/embark from a valkyrie, and also that players should be aware of, and decide how to play the rules for the valkyrie.

I've stated my opinion on how it should be played multiple times, and I don't think I should have to add the same disclaimer to every post I make regarding how the rules interact with the vehicle.

Sorry for not noticing that, but after about 30 variations of reading you re-state your view of RAW, it's hard to remember you posting anything else.

Polonius wrote:@ Insaniak: You asked how people resolved things.

It was a rhetorical question, aimed at someone who seemed to be suggesting that discussing the rules was not the way to resolve rules issues...

insaniak wrote:So how exactly do you resolve situations where the rules don't work without discussing them?

Just curious...

According to the OP, boycott the models involved till word comes down from heaven above...

We get it Willystyle, you're convinced as to the RAW regarding Valkyries.

Perhaps he's convinced because hes' right. Going around calling TFG every time someone cites the rules is a bit ridiculous, don't you think, Polonius?

Danny Internets wrote:

We get it Willystyle, you're convinced as to the RAW regarding Valkyries.

Perhaps he's convinced because hes' right. Going around calling TFG every time someone cites the rules is a bit ridiculous, don't you think, Polonius?

You're not supposed to reply, I'm the minority view: the lone voice calling for change, spitting in the face of public opinion... I'm a rebel Dotti, a loner.

You definitely will continue to be a loner if you keep this act up. Just listen to the argument, and come up with your own.

Personally I don't think Valkryies were DESIGNED to be transports that could pick up models and drive them around like a chimera. It was designed to dramatically drop your troops right on top of the enemy in a risky (but cool) manner, and them blow the crap out of them.
Play them as they should be played. Suicidally dangerous transports. Fit only for the Gung Ho, insane or ballsy...

I agree that the grav-chute deployment is cool but if that's the only way passengers could disembark then why can they only do it when moving flat-out?

I don't know, mabye it's only LETHAL to disembark by grav-chute when it has moved flat out.

In order to remove pretty much all rules problems about the Valkyrie; don't put it on its stand!!!!

Yeah, your avatar says it all. But according to the rules it's a skimmer isn't it? Is there are passage that mentions skimmers and dis/embarking?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Yeah, your avatar says it all. But according to the rules it's a skimmer isn't it? Is there are passage that mentions skimmers and dis/embarking?

The first page of This Thread has most of the salient rules.

I know there are plenty of rules for transports but does it actually mention skimmer transports specifically?

Anyway, I think the Valkryies models are just TOO awesome. The very idea of having not a mechanised army but an AIRBORNE army make me drool. Its awesome enough to ignore the lack of rules and possibly the lack of chance in winning.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I know there are plenty of rules for transports but does it actually mention skimmer transports specifically?

Anyway, I think the Valkryies models are just TOO awesome. The very idea of having not a mechanised army but an AIRBORNE army make me drool. Its awesome enough to ignore the lack of rules and possibly the lack of chance in winning.

Most skimmer transports are close enough to the table that you can disembark from then while staying well within the normal rules for transports.

I think it was intended to be able to disembark from valkyries... I just think it's stupid that there aren't any rules to actually be able to.

Eh,
What you gonna do?

willydstyle wrote:
I think it was intended to be able to disembark from valkyries... I just think it's stupid that there aren't any rules to actually be able to.

Suggestion : gravchute. When moving flat out, it's dangerous, hence the special rule. When not moving flat out, it drops troopers off safely under the Valk. Use the base for measuring.

Sgt Rinehart wrote:

willydstyle wrote:
I think it was intended to be able to disembark from valkyries... I just think it's stupid that there aren't any rules to actually be able to.

Suggestion : gravchute. When moving flat out, it's dangerous, hence the special rule. When not moving flat out, it drops troopers off safely under the Valk. Use the base for measuring.

That's a reasonable workaround, but it's not supported by the rules, so what do you do when your opponent wants to play closer to the rulebook?

willydstyle wrote:That's a reasonable workaround, but it's not supported by the rules, so what do you do when your opponent wants to play closer to the rulebook?

Headshot?


If an opponent doesn't want to accept, he's more than welcome to suggest another workaround. If we can't come up with something mutually agreeable, I'm usually quite willing to flip a coin to see which interpretation we'll be using.
Simply saying "they can't disembark" would mean no game, because he will most likely not be an enjoyable opponent.
The Valk is a transport. It's fairly obvious there has to be some way to exit the vehicle. Even if GW did drop the ball somewhat in the elaboration of exactly how to go about it.

Well, there's always the grav chute deployment that there are rules for.

Most of the opponents that I like to play want to play as close to the rules as possible.

I guess you can refuse games all you want... but to do so because your opponent wants to play close to the rules seems like poor sportsmanship to me.

GW needs to write better rules.

if they wanna play like that i' will be the last time that I play against them.

and btw it's game ment for fun not like the American way (didn't knew that it was that bad overthere)

moonfire wrote:if they wanna play like that i' will be the last time that I play against them.

and btw it's game ment for fun not like the American way (didn't knew that it was that bad overthere)

I have tons of fun when I play. I joke and laugh, and have a good time. I also play by the rules, but in cases where things seem to be Intended differently than Written, I'm quite amenable to coming to a working rule through collaboration.

That being said, I play as close to the RAW as possible, because it leads to less arguments, which leads to more fun.