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.

Obviously the cylinder does NOT extend infinitely, otherwise these examples are not possible. it must extend only to the top of the model.

Additionally, there are no other rules for what space vehicles occupy. It Occupies the space of its base, and the physical boundaries of the model.

insaniak wrote:
That only makes them a different story if the rules actually make an exception.

Besides, a skimmer on the top level of a ruin is still hovering. Would you argue that it can't be placed there if there are models on the bottom floor?

They do actually make an exception: Page 82 the very first paragraph basically spells out that the rules in those section are for Ruins and nothing else.

If there is no enemy on the top floor (The plane that the skimmer exists on) than it is fine.

Sorry, but how do you get 'the model occupies x amount of space' from 'the model may not be placed on top of another model'?

The two statements are not even remotely related.

They are one in the same. If you can't place your model on top of other models how can you place models under it?

The rule lists one particular example of why the base can not be removed. It in no way implies that this one example is the only reason that the base can not be removed. It simply says that the base is removed if possible.

But the way it reads is that if you can physicaly remove the model from the base you must do so. weather or not you can lay it on the table is another story. The rules are only concerned about the removal of the base.

bigtmac68 wrote:I have seen so many different rulings on this that I deliberately asked the TO before the tournament which is why they were positioned that way.

Privately getting a ruling from the TO beforehand leaves a bad taste in my mouth. First since you are the only one to know a rule has been changed you can play it to your advantage with your opponent not knowing how it is done. Second it allows you and you alone to present your side of the debate to the judge in private with no counter argument present. You secure the ruling in your favor quite easily and when it comes up during a game the judge will dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary just because he has made the call already. I have seen judges say 'well you might be right, but I ruled this way already.' and leave it that way until the next tournament.

The propoer course of action would be for the judge to open the floor for discussion before making a ruling so both sides of the debate can be heard. Needless to say your GW rep is a wonderfully shoddy source of information for this ruling. Should will trump that with the Midwest director of sales or US regional manager?

Asking a TO ahead of time is recommended on this board continuously.

Anyone else that has asked about Valkries got the same answer.

The person making the decision in this case was the store owner (me), not the GW rep that was helping to run the tourney. Don't blame the GW rep.

Both players stated how they felt.

I made a decision, and if I'd see/heard anything that would have changed what I had said earlier, I would have ruled differently.

Both players were asked if the ruling worked for them.

Both said yes.

Both players are moving on to the regionals.

......................................................................................

I dont think you can put models on top of each other because:

1.) BRB says models cannot end move ontop of each other or in the overlapping space. The hull of the model may count for assaults/shooting or the base but the model is the model and they are overlapping and in each others space.

2.) blast weapons. Blast weapons represent a 3-D explosion but when you have models on top of each other then you fire a blast weapon at one weird things that have no rules in the current edition come up because the blast template is a 2-D template not designed to take into account models stacking ontop of each other or being in each others space since the rules are against that. Its better not to allow it.

Negativemoney wrote:This is the first problem that I have with your argument. Warhammer is a permissive rules set. What that means is that you must have permission to do something otherwise you cannot do it. There is nothing in the rules that allows any model to move in three dimensions apart from the rules listed in the ruins section of the rule book and even then you are restricted to only 3 dimensional movement in ruins. Even movement on hills is considered to be 2 dimensional as you do not need to take into account the vertical distance moved just the horizontal. also the rules specifically restrict the overlapping of models as detailed on page 71 of the rule book as well as on page 11 (both have been quoted numerous times).

Well, here's the problem.

You believe 40K is inherently a 2D game while I believe it is inherently a 3D game. There will be no agreement in this case, it simply won't be possible. I'm right in a 3D system, you are right in a 2D system.

Ask GW how their game works. Ask them if you measure horizontally to move up a hill, or if you would measure diagonally using the incline angle of the hill as your measuring angle. You will move a different amount of distance depending which method you use, so it is not a minor issue. It effects many other parts of the game, such as this Vendetta question. Base your answer on this Vendetta situation on theirs is my recommendation.

so what happens if you fire a large blast template at a skimmer "over" another skimmer and the template looking down covers both with the central hole.

Can I move an infantry unit beneath a skimmer thats friendly so that I can ignore low strength blast templates, flamer templates?

Can I move a infantry unit beneath a enemy skimmer?

mikhaila wrote:Both players are moving on to the regionals.

Unfortunately, the outcome of that game against Troy knocked me out of the top 3 so I will not be going onto the regionals.

I may not have been 110% onboard with the ruling but the decision was made and we simply move on.

Everything was resolved amicably and I couldn't ask for better opponents. All in all, it was a great event!

blaktoof wrote:so what happens if you fire a large blast template at a skimmer "over" another skimmer and the template looking down covers both with the central hole.

Can I move an infantry unit beneath a skimmer thats friendly so that I can ignore low strength blast templates, flamer templates?

Can I move a infantry unit beneath a enemy skimmer?

For how we played it at this tournament (ignore wings, tail, count hull for overlap and measuring) 1) You can't overlap hulls, so won't have one skimmer over another. 2) friendlies can't hide under a skimmer hull 3) no

Notice that in the pictures he took, it's the wings/tail that overlap, not hulls.

Just like what happens when you shoot guys in a building blak. You state which unit you are going for and that is the "level" the shot takes place at. Ergo you only hit the highest vehicle and you wouldn't hit the guys beneath the vehicle. And yes if the enemy skimmer is over 1" above the top of your model then you can move it under and enemy skimmer as long as you do not get within 1" of the base of the model.

We play it like the tournament organize ruled it. At least that is how it is played in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. As far as I've seen anyway.

NotThisTime wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Both players are moving on to the regionals.

Unfortunately, the outcome of that game against Troy knocked me out of the top 3 so I will not be going onto the regionals.

I may not have been 110% onboard with the ruling but the decision was made and we simply move on.

Everything was resolved amicably and I couldn't ask for better opponents. All in all, it was a great event!

My bad memory then, sorry, I thought you were moving on. Still on lack of sleep from that weekend. So I can see how it could have affected you. I'll let you know if anyone drops though.

I believe that a skimmer cannot end its movement on, or above, another model. I realize that there is some reasonable contention and I can't make it an absolute declaration. But taken in context of the entire rule, it is what seems right.

That does not, however, mean that the model 'extends' to the table. Nor does it mean that it occupies the space below the hull. It just means it is an added restriction to a skimmer, it cannot end its move on or above another model. Other models, however, are free to end their moves below the skimmer, since they do not have a similar restriction.


Area is 2 dimensional, space is 3 dimensional. The model occupies the area of the base, it does not occupy the space above the base.

coredump wrote:
That does not, however, mean that the model 'extends' to the table. Nor does it mean that it occupies the space below the hull. It just means it is an added restriction to a skimmer, it cannot end its move on or above another model. Other models, however, are free to end their moves below the skimmer, since they do not have a similar restriction.

That is assuming that movement ends once you let go of the model. I would say movement ends when the movement phase ends.

RxGhost wrote:
The problem in this example is that none of these models are vehicles or skimmers. It is unimportant if there is overhang because we know that the only space they occupy is the base of the model, an infinite, invisible, cylindrical base that extends to the heavens. Quite simply, a vehicle (yeah, skimmers are those too) take up an amount of space equal to the hull, regardless of its base.

I would love to play it like that, that would mean that my Valks couldn't be assaulted since enemy models wouldn't be able to get within 1" of the base or hull without crossing this invisible barrier!

I would gladly give up the abilitty to embark troops, contest objectives, etc, if this was the case!

PhantomViper wrote:

RxGhost wrote:
The problem in this example is that none of these models are vehicles or skimmers. It is unimportant if there is overhang because we know that the only space they occupy is the base of the model, an infinite, invisible, cylindrical base that extends to the heavens. Quite simply, a vehicle (yeah, skimmers are those too) take up an amount of space equal to the hull, regardless of its base.

I would love to play it like that, that would mean that my Valks couldn't be assaulted since enemy models wouldn't be able to get within 1" of the base or hull without crossing this invisible barrier!

I would gladly give up the abilitty to embark troops, contest objectives, etc, if this was the case!

There is no invisible curtain from the hull down to the ground. The open area underneath the hull and not over the base of a skimmer is freely open area for others to move through. Think of a Valkyrie kind of like a T, not a square.

Kaaihn wrote:
There is no invisible curtain from the hull down to the ground. The open area underneath the hull and not over the base of a skimmer is freely open area for others to move through. Think of a Valkyrie kind of like a T, not a square.

I know there isn't, I was just saying how it would play it if the rule would somehow be how RxGhost and NotThisTime are saying it should be (i.e. the vehicle ocuppies an amount of space equal to a cilinder extending in both vertical directions from the hull and into infinity).

If you deep strike on top of another unit it is a mishap. I don't even see why there is any discussion.

Don't know if this has come up yet, but...

I could see that these vehicles might be flying at different heights - in which case, overlap is not a big deal. 40K doesn't care what altitude skimmers fly at, so I could see a judge allowing the overlap.

As for me, I think it is silly. Because if I wanted to get into base-to-base with it (ie a charge) am I really going to go to the bother of getting models UNDER the wings in order to attack? And if that's the way it was played, you'd have to take the skimmer off the table every time this happened - come on.

I play Valks, easiest way to do it it measure your shooting from the mounts, like any other vehicle, and measure all incoming shots, movement, and assualt from the base. Other then grouping them closer together their is no real benifit to how they are stacked, and yes this model makes life annoying, beautiful to look at but issues like this, plus trying to pack it without damage make life more interesting then i like.

doubled wrote:I play Valks, easiest way to do it it measure your shooting from the mounts, like any other vehicle, and measure all incoming shots, movement, and assualt from the base. Other then grouping them closer together their is no real benifit to how they are stacked, and yes this model makes life annoying, beautiful to look at but issues like this, plus trying to pack it without damage make life more interesting then i like.

I hear you, man. I am looking at $250 for a Battle foam carrier for my 8 Vendettas I don't even know if there will be space for the troops.

Well the valk/vend is now a skimmer not a flyer so simple question.

Can all skimmers do this? If you replaced the models shown in pic with a waveserpent/land speeder/devilfish/etc would the argument be the same?

If it is ruled the no model can be under the wings of a Vendetta/Valkyrie then you can make a powerful wall in front of your troops. If you take a few models and have their wingtips an inch away from each other by virtue to turning them you can make it so an enemy charging at the middle would be forced to funnel all the way around to get to your forces as well mas making your skimmers nearly completely unassailable.

Is this really how people would prefer to see them played? Also if a model takes up space down then that would also mean the part containing the access point would as well so you could still deploy and embark as normal as well as creat an untouchable wall of scoring.

This thread just shows what length some people will go to. :(

The easiest way to say it is that they put a flyer in with skimmer rules. There will be no correct answer until its faq'ed. One of two things needs to happen. Include a skimmer base thats low to the ground and allows for current rules to be used or use 2" deployment from the base. Ignore the wings and fusilage for purposes of models under the vendetta and only consider them for purposes of enemy fire stirking the vendetta. That way nothing is "under" this massive model but you don't lose out on your chance to strike it.

Negativemoney wrote:They do actually make an exception: Page 82 the very first paragraph basically spells out that the rules in those section are for Ruins and nothing else.

You're still missing the point. Where in those rules does it specifically allow models in Ruins to be above other models?

If it's not allowed normally, and the Ruins rules don't change the normal rules, then it's still not allowed in Ruins.

insaniak wrote:Sorry, but how do you get 'the model occupies x amount of space' from 'the model may not be placed on top of another model'?
The two statements are not even remotely related.

They are one in the same. If you can't place your model on top of other models how can you place models under it?

Not only are 'above' and 'below' not the same thing, what you just said still doesn't explain why you think that occupying a given space has anything to do with being on top of something.

But the way it reads is that if you can physicaly remove the model from the base you must do so.

That might be the way you read it, but it's not what it actually says.

All it says is that the base must be removed if possible. It doesn't specify 'physically possible'... just 'possible'... So that would include rules-based removal problems just as much as physical problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:If you deep strike on top of another unit it is a mishap. I don't even see why there is any discussion.

There's a discussion because we're not talking about models Deep Striking on top of other models. We're talking about parts of one model being above other models, which is an altogether different situation.



Just something else to consider, sparked by the mention of Deep Striking, though:
I would be fairly confident that the rule prohibiting you from Deep Striking onto other models is there simply because it would be physically impossible to place the models.

Likewise, the rule that tells us that skimmers can't end their move on top of other models is (in my opinion) there to stop you from trying to balance your skimmer on top of a tank, or from having to figure out where the troops go if they're standing where you want the skimmer. Rather than the models moving out of the way, you have to put the skimmer somewhere else.

Placing a Valkyrie so that its tail is hanging above other models causes no placement conflicts. You don't have to move anything out of the way to do it. So there's no physical reason not to do so.

For what that's worth.

In the event that I fire a Blast weapon and I pleace the center of the template over a Dreadnaught that happens to be under the wings of one vendetta and under the tail of a second vendetta; Do I hit all 3 vehicles in that case?

That would depend on whether or not you're counting the wings and tail as part of the Vendetta's hull.

If you are, and if those parts are under the Blast marker (Blast weapons don't use a template, they use a Blast marker. Template weapons use Templates ) then yes, all three vehicles would be hit.

If you aren't counting those parts as a part of the hull, or the marker isn't over those vehicles, then no, they're not hit.

Only vehicles with their hull at least partially under the marker are hit by Blasts.

I'm also curious as to exactly what might occur if a model was under the wings of a valkyrie when it was immobilised. For me, the 'removed if possible' applies only really to the case where the base is glued on. If a model is under the Valk, it is still possible to remove the base, just not set the model on the table.
Hmm.
Good job GW.

Trasvi wrote: If a model is under the Valk, it is still possible to remove the base, just not set the model on the table.

Being unable to set the model on the table makes it impossible to remove the base, since the rules don't give you anything else to do with it. The model has to be sitting on the table. If the only way to sit it on the table is to leave the base on, then that is the only option you have short of creating a house rule to deal with it.

As a thought, though... the 'unable to place the destroyed vehicle on the table because of other models' isn't really exclusive to the Valk. You would potentially have the same problem with a vehicle destroyed by an assaulting enemy if your crater terrain has larger dimensions that the original vehicle. Make of that what you will.

Ive been following this discussion with interest and something occurred to me- if you ignore the wings for LOS and targeting pruposes, but still measure firing from the weapons mount, it is entirely conceivable that a Valk/Vend could remain stationary behind a building that blocked the central portion of the model, and still fire it's weapons without being targetable itself.

This seems silly and not just a little broken.