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.

augustus5 wrote:

jbalthis wrote:in aeronatucs, a fuselage is the main body of an aircraft excluding the wings.

Also, Has anyone ever been in the situation where the sponsons on a raider/predator/lemon russ were the only thing visible?

All I can say is that if the IG players in my area start trying to pull off some of this crap then I'm sure as hell going to be parking my Land Raiders and Predators where only the weapon sponsons are visable from behind cover so I can shoot and the enemy can't shoot back at my invisible sponsons.

Are sponsons listed as not being part of the hull? Because I have and seen other do this, but they can be fired upon as not just the weapon barrels must be visible, but the weapons too, and I think those are not excluded as targetables. We just count the vehicle as being in cover.

Maybe it depends on whether or not they're enclosed?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Maybe it depends on whether or not they're enclosed?

How so? Like the sponsons on a Russ compared to the sponsons on a new Predator? You still have a straight line back to the weapon's body, depending if you include the sponson as a targetable. I think shear acceptance over time push this one out of the gray area and into the black as targetable as well.

Yeah, a Russ and a Pred would be an example. It's the difference between having something attatched to the main body, and something integrated into the main body.

Although, I agree that convention will probably swing one way for all sponsons.

I'm so happy you guys brought this back on track.

Here's my two cents, the valkyrie still has a large hull if we agree a hull is a hull. By including the wings, you do INCREASE the modeal area greatly. Now if we include the wings into the hull then how do you have units underneath a hull? It's not allowed. The whole rule about assualting the base of skimmer is thrown out the window. Then run into measuring distances to and from the valkyrie problems, assualting it, can you see through it?

I honestly think if you don't count the wings as part of the hull you run into LESS rule problems...

I also would like to point out the people who randomnly chime in "If IG player does this I call bull at my LGS" aren't really providing anything for this thread. Except point out that people aren't really caring about RAW but instead care about what they think would make it easier to kill a valk.

Are you sure you can't move units underneath the hull of a vehicle (if you're not within an inch of it)?

That would certainly throw the wings out of the picture.

I'm at work right now so I can't view a rulebook, so I can't verify. Take that with a grain of salt until I can back it up.

You can move under Models so long as you remain 1" from the physical thing or its base.

Also yay, big flamestorm and I didn't cause it! Oh how times have changed :3

It depends if you count 'on top of' as being synonymous with 'over':

BGB p.71 wrote:Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.

EDIT: Gwar!'s interpretation seems to be the only sane way of handling the issue whilst counting the wings as targetable

The origin of the word "hull" seems to favor the wings not being included.

"Hull" for a tank comes from "hull" for a ship, which comes from "hull" as a synonym for the husk of a fruit or nut. That usage of "hull" comes from Old English "helan", which means "to conceal".

Wings aren't concealing anything, nor are they in any way analogous to the husk of a fruit. The word has changed meaning over time, but the meaning has always been a form of protective cover or shell around something else.

I think the real problem is that Games Workshop assumed every vehicle was a tank, and thus every significant part of it would be the hull or a turret. Hence all the examples of untargetable pieces of the vehicle being trivial, or too small to target.

This seems very very simple to me. I don't know why people have to start talking about real world definitions of hulls or talk about the Valkyrie's properties of flight. The Rulebook gives us a definition for hull.

"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions. Since you have to build the valkarie with its wings and it obviously is not one of the things mentioned it is part of the hull. If you want to argue against that somehow that would be fine but you we don't really need to talk about if it needs the wings to fly or what the real world definition of a hull is to solve this one.

You're seeing what you want to see. You could say that the part in parenthesis applies to the turret only, or doesn't apply to the hull or turret at all, but tell you to ignore those.

Unless it says, "A hull is ...." Then a definition is not provided.

Gwar! wrote: Also yay, big flamestorm and I didn't cause it! Oh how times have changed :3

Does make a change ... welcome back.


Wings ... you made that up at no point are wings defined in a gaming term for any thing.

oh and while we going to dictionary corner for fluff please look at 3 ...

Hull
1.
====1. The dry outer covering of a fruit, seed, or nut; a husk.
====2. The enlarged calyx of a fruit, such as a strawberry, that is usually green and easily detached.
2.
====1. Nautical. The frame or body of a ship, exclusive of masts, engines, or superstructure.
====2. The main body of various other large vehicles, such as a tank, airship, or flying boat.
3. The outer casing of a rocket, guided missile, or spaceship.


If a Valkyrie isn't a space ship then i don't know what is

Tri wrote:If a Valkyrie isn't a space ship then i don't know what is

<nitpick> The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Valkyrie Variant and The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Vendetta Variant have been suitably Blessed by the Tech Priests and Enginseers of the Omnissiah to provide additional Most Holy Protection for the servants of The Most Holy Immortal God-Emperor. However, doing so results in Additional Weight due to the Most Holy Blessed Armour Plating of the Emperors Fury, and as such the Most Holy Blessed Jet Engines of the Omnissiah become strained under the Awesome Radiance of His Most Holy Light. As such, The Most Holy Emperor has so decreed that this Most Holy Variant of the Most Holy God-Emperor's particular Most Holy Vehicle is to be Rendered incapable of Most Blessed Space Flight, and as such can only sustain Slightly Less Than Most Holy Atmospheric Flight after being transported to the Emperors World on a Most Holy Cargo Drop Ship of the Most Holy Imperial Navy</nitpick>

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:If a Valkyrie isn't a space ship then i don't know what is

<nitpick> The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Valkyrie Variant and The Emperors Most Holy Blessed Armoured Vendetta Variant have been suitably Blessed by the Tech Priests and Enginseers of the Omnissiah to provide additional Most Holy Protection for the servants of The Most Holy Immortal God-Emperor. However, doing so results in Additional Weight due to the Most Holy Blessed Armour Plating of the Emperors Fury, and as such the Most Holy Blessed Jet Engines of the Omnissiah become strained under the Awesome Radiance of His Most Holy Light. As such, The Most Holy Emperor has so decreed that this Most Holy Variant of the Most Holy God-Emperor's particular Most Holy Vehicle is to be Rendered incapable of Most Blessed Space Flight, and as such can only sustain Slightly Less Than Most Holy Atmospheric Flight after being transported to the Emperors World on a Most Holy Cargo Drop Ship of the Most Holy Imperial Navy</nitpick>

Not my problem its a space ship with too much armour to make it into space, it can still fly in space just not make orbit under its own power

It has air breathing turbines - read IA books, they mention the flight systems on more than one occasion. They do not have space capability - a thunderhawk has far far more armour yet is fine with air-space, as it has different engines actually capable of space flight.

As for not being able to move under the wings - of course you can. As long as your base (or hull) is more than 1" away (for an enemy) you have no restrictions placed upon you. Big, big trhread provbed this conclusively.

Yay Gwar is back! Though I mostly disagree with you, this forum has been a boring and slowed place without you.

Wings are hull. Anything 'not hull' is decorative elements or pokey bits (or weapons). To prevent this situation from happening In the same way that you must draw LOS to the body of an infantry model (so as not to penalize dramatically posed models) you are not allowed to draw LOS to the 'dramatically posed' parts of your tank.

Basically, our rule is this: if the part could have been left off the model or if it is a gun barrel, then you can't target it.

Trasvi wrote:Yay Gwar is back! Though I mostly disagree with you, this forum has been a boring and slowed place without you.

This is because GW think that "Having fun" is an excuse to write sloppy rules. Honestly, give myself, Yakface and a few others a marker, we could tighten up the rules in 3 weeks max

Not to mention, shooting a wing off the valk will probably make it crash. The thing is no A-10!

whitedragon wrote:Not to mention, shooting a wing off the valk will probably make it crash. The thing is no A-10!

THE MOST HOLY ARMOUR PLATING OF THE EMPERORS RIGHTEOUS MOST HOLY.....
.....

.....



..... FAITH FAITH BLAH BLAH!

applecookie wrote:"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions. Since you have to build the valkarie with its wings and it obviously is not one of the things mentioned it is part of the hull.

That's essentially my conclusion now as well, the 'wings' reference I was thinking of earlier actually came from the rules for shooting at MODELS not vehicles.

Trasvi wrote:Wings are hull. Anything 'not hull' is decorative elements or pokey bits (or weapons). To prevent this situation from happening In the same way that you must draw LOS to the body of an infantry model (so as not to penalize dramatically posed models) you are not allowed to draw LOS to the 'dramatically posed' parts of your tank.

Indeed.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I don't know what everyone else's Valkyries are made of, ...mine are made of Heklethmarratrysphritum. ...so it can fly quite easily even with both wings blow off....essentially decorative and provide a place for weapons to mount to, but are not necessary for continued flight. The jets at the wing tips are also strictly decorative

There's no rules that tell you what the barrel of a lascannon is either. So I guess my lascannon barrels are invisible and fly ten feet above the tank, and those things on the sponsons are jellybeans.

Actually by your own logic there's no way to tell what the hull is, because everyone makes up whatever rules they want for their vehicle, so your arguments are kind of pointless.

Orkeosaurus, I salute you for nailing it. That was hilarious IMO. Well spoken. Those arguments "are quite pointless", I agree. Furthermore, if someone were in a tournament with me and said the wings don't count, as they are not for flight, well, that just sounds ridiculous, I would laugh, ask if they are serious and then call a judge.

To ad some support to this position, are the wings of a valkyrie decorative, heroically posed or optional? (No, they are part of every kit).

yeah,
That was a Hit all day long!

I'd have asked the dude to move his gunship to a legal position without changing it's direction...

after the dude had put his model 2/3" more towards the center of the table so that it was legally placed, your corresponding shot would have been 2/3" more towards the center and after scatter still been on the table.

Panic...

applecookie wrote:This seems very very simple to me. I don't know why people have to start talking about real world definitions of hulls or talk about the Valkyrie's properties of flight. The Rulebook gives us a definition for hull.

"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions...

OK then... let me ask this question:

If "the hull is everything on the vehicle" as you suppose, why does the passage also go on to state "or turret"? Clearly we can see from the sentence the author does NOT consider every part of the vehicle it's hull or he would not have bothered to include "or turret". A "hull" is a hull. It has a dictionary definition just as "turret" does.

We can categorically state the book says Turrets and Hulls are valid targets, and Gun Barrels, Antennas, Banner Poles are not. Let's not even talk about what the "etc" in that clause means as it requires interpretation. One interpretation is "everything besides Hulls and Turrets" and another interpretation is "whatever the reader decides etc. means".

Again I maintain that the Valk is a flying rules grey area and is in dire need of an FAQ from GW. Maybe Yak should get to work on that so they have something to base their FAQ on.

Edit: Smilie added for effect. I think this whole thread is rather amusing.

The Green Git wrote:

applecookie wrote:This seems very very simple to me. I don't know why people have to start talking about real world definitions of hulls or talk about the Valkyrie's properties of flight. The Rulebook gives us a definition for hull.

"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.)." P60 of the Rulebook

This IMO cleary states that the hull is everything on the vehicle except for extra additions...

OK then... let me ask this question:

If "the hull is everything on the vehicle" as you suppose, why does the passage also go on to state "or turret"? Clearly we can see from the sentence the author does NOT consider every part of the vehicle it's hull or he would not have bothered to include "or turret". A "hull" is a hull. It has a dictionary definition just as "turret" does....

Because the rule was written for tanks? Because not all vehicles have a turret?

The Green Git wrote:

OK then... let me ask this question:

If "the hull is everything on the vehicle" as you suppose, why does the passage also go on to state "or turret"?

easy the turret on a vyper for example is 80% Guardian, 10% gun and 10% seat.

Because weapons are mounted either on the hull or on turrets?

The mind boggles.

Shep wrote:If he was coming on from reserve, then I'd say his vehicle was legally placed...

yeah,
I disagree, I think that allowing a overhanging vehicle that comes in from reserves should only apply to vehicles with a move insufficant to get the whole model onto the table.. eg baneblades.
the valk has a 12" move and should be able to be placed completely on the table and should never over hang.

Also I think that the wings are targetable as they are too substantial to ignore, house weapons and provide cover.

I also think that you should be able to assault the wings, no trooper is going to think 'I'm not going to attack this valk with my melta bomb because I can only reach the wing...'
nope he's going to slap that bad boy on the wing and watch the sparks fly!

Panic...

While I think the wings should count for blast hits and as LOS targets, I have a double standard, because I also think the owning player ought to have the ability to put things under them.

I think the size of the flight stand demonstrates designers intent for other things, tanks even to be underneath them.

I don't have much of RAW case for that thought.

The valkyrie is so cool, but what a pain to actually play it.

Putting a 2" model under a 6" flight stand allows for it to be outside of the 1" that is prohibited.

Seems to follow RAW to me.

Or did I miss something?

kirsanth wrote:Putting a 2" model under a 6" flight stand allows for it to be outside of the 1" that is prohibited.

Seems to follow RAW to me.

Or did I miss something?

You understand things well.