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.

Let's be logical here, folks! If you want to hack the tail boom off of your aircraft, that's fine... but as it would crash shortly off taking off I'll only let you move for one turn in one direction before being automatically immobilized.


On a more serious note, things like this make me glad I don't play competitively.... my Sentinel is a little lower than yours because I modeled it in a running pose. Does THAT mean I'm modeling for advantage? How about those two Guardsman who are kneeling instead of standing?

My goodness.

Owain wrote:Let's be logical here, folks! If you want to hack the tail boom off of your aircraft, that's fine... but as it would crash shortly off taking off I'll only let you move for one turn in one direction before being automatically immobilized.

This is YMDC, not a place of reason. This is the dark place where turret mounted template weapons cease to work, Ogryn aren't Ogryn whenever someone bothered to find out their name, and the Inquisition suddenly became one day unable to requisition any LRBTs because they only started coming in three-packs. Common sense has no place here and any attempt to rationalize using real-world physics is against the rules and invalid to the debate, otherwise you shouldn't have even gotten this far and you should still be stuck on how the Valk can sit still for however many turns it feels like in midair. It's a SKIMMER, not a FLYER. They are different rules.

Owain wrote:
On a more serious note, things like this make me glad I don't play competitively.... my Sentinel is a little lower than yours because I modeled it in a running pose. Does THAT mean I'm modeling for advantage? How about those two Guardsman who are kneeling instead of standing?

Not to me, but I don't care if you play with soda can drop pods and shoebox land raiders. Modeling is awesome and looks really good when real effort is put into it, but a lack of it doesn't ruin my immersion. I too also have kneeling guardsmen and even GW-made snipers that are prone.

I do definitely agree with your overall feeling on competitive play. I was planning on going to Adepticon, but stuff like this makes me second-guess it. The general opinion is that if you reduce footprint on ANYTHING, then it must be for advantage. If you want to get really nauseous, check out some skimmer base height arguments. That 1/8" actually does matter that much to some people.

Back to topic, my argument is that it doesn't matter one way or the other if it doesn't have the tail, because the tail (and even the wings) aren't part of the hull per my previous post.

Oh, also, google "blended wing". If we're figuring it out now, imagine what could exist in the 38,000 years from now.

Owain wrote:
My goodness.

Quite.

I'm not Gwar!, but it looks like the diagram takes a square, bisects it several times, rearranges the pieces into a rectangle, and then compares the area of each. Apparently the area of a rectangle is greater than the equivalent square, spatial cognizance is broken, and my head explodes.

No, I meant warboss's graph. What exactly was that meant to convey? That the tail is indeed a pretty big chunk of the valkyrie to just ignore?

Anyway, I think I need to make a clarification (well, to anyone who hasn't put me on ignore yet...and while I personally have nothing against warboss I think it's pretty stupid to do that, especially after he admitted he was doing little more than wasting our time). I'm not exactly trying to say you guys are wrong, the fuselage of an aircraft is considered the "hull", the wings and tail are just that, wings and tail. I'm not trying to say that isn't the case, all I'm saying is that playing with the RAW in this instance is just a tad nonsensical, because that little oversight in the rules would mean that a good half of your vehicle technically doesn't even exist (not actually having a valkyrie model to judge yet makes it difficult to say, but I'd say wings+tail=at least half the total size of the model, right?), which is obviously bs.

I'll go with RAW rulings in some cases, but not this one. Not ever, unless I was literally forced to, like say at a tournament (which I would probably never attend again after the fact). When GW published these rules they hadn't yet released a model like the valkyrie, issues like this would almost never come up with any other model because they're all shaped like bricks. The only ones I can really think of are Tau devilfish and Dark Eldar raiders, since if we go by the same logic used for the valkyrie, engines and useless bladed projections aren't part of the hull, either.

So, in other words, you guys are right and I agree with you: wings and tail aren't part of the hull of an aircraft. But in terms of the game and for the sake of fair play, they should be considered as such because just ignoring those parts of the vehicle causes some pretty big problems. At least for me, it seems...


And also, I really don't care what people do to their models, so long as it's within reason and you aren't trying to gain some kind of advantage doing it. Kneeling infantry and running models are okay with me because they can be assembled that way...as for models that are prone or on elaborate bases I believe the rulebook says you assume they're of average height anyway. It's a little trickier for me in other cases, like that Catachan thread that was mentioned where the guy has awesome Old Crow vehicles instead of sentinels...it's awesome and obviously wasn't done to try and cheat anyone, but considering they're about half the height and at least twice as long (judging by the looks of them anyway, maybe less than that even) it does present a problem in game. But personally, someone who shows up at the table with chopped and dropped land raiders or valkyries that can somehow fly without wings or tails is when I start to have a problem, especially in the case of the land raider because that's just taking the piss.

If you want to get really nauseous, check out some skimmer base height arguments. That 1/8" actually does matter that much to some people.

I just use the stems that came with the models. Eliminates all argument at that point, you have to mount them on the base they came with and the bases usually come with four different lengths of stem.

In any case, I don't have a problem with an 1/8 of an inch. In the valkyrie's case though, this isn't a mere 1/8 of an inch we're talking about, and I think I have every right to question that.


And another thing, even though warboss is ignoring me now, I still think it's a really bad idea to let Dakka influence that kind of decision. Buy whatever the hell you guys want, don't let someone on the internet talk you out of it. And hell, none of you people even really know me anyway, I may sound pretty dead-set against the idea of cut-down valkyries in this thread but I could turn right around and play several games with you regardless.

I've not seen the kit so i don't know if the tail part are hollow. But couldn't you pint the tail? If you used a logn enough pin ut didn't actually glue it that coudl make the tail removable.

Sidstyler wrote:

Anyway, I think I need to make a clarification (well, to anyone who hasn't put me on ignore yet...and while I personally have nothing against warboss I think it's pretty stupid to do that, especially after he admitted he was doing little more than wasting our time). I'm not exactly trying to say you guys are wrong, the fuselage of an aircraft is considered the "hull", the wings and tail are just that, wings and tail. I'm not trying to say that isn't the case, all I'm saying is that playing with the RAW in this instance is just a tad nonsensical, because that little oversight in the rules would mean that a good half of your vehicle technically doesn't even exist (not actually having a valkyrie model to judge yet makes it difficult to say, but I'd say wings+tail=at least half the total size of the model, right?), which is obviously bs.
I'll go with RAW rulings in some cases, but not this one. Not ever, unless I was literally forced to, like say at a tournament (which I would probably never attend again after the fact). When GW published these rules they hadn't yet released a model like the valkyrie, issues like this would almost never come up with any other model because they're all shaped like bricks. The only ones I can really think of are Tau devilfish and Dark Eldar raiders, since if we go by the same logic used for the valkyrie, engines and useless bladed projections aren't part of the hull, either.

From the two Valks that I have sitting up on my top shelf collecting dust, I can say that when put together, the wings are about as large as the hull.

Sidstyler wrote:
So, in other words, you guys are right and I agree with you: wings and tail aren't part of the hull of an aircraft. But in terms of the game and for the sake of fair play, they should be considered as such because just ignoring those parts of the vehicle causes some pretty big problems. At least for me, it seems...

You know, it sounds like it is an absurd TFG type of thing to demand that the wings and tail don't count, but honestly, I've played it either way, and it doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as you'd think it would. Most blast marker weapons hit within range anyway, but front AV 13 doesn't hold up very long due to the "Ahhh! It's big, kill it kill it now!" effect the thing has in general.

Sidstyler wrote:
And also, I really don't care what people do to their models, so long as it's within reason and you aren't trying to gain some kind of advantage doing it. Kneeling infantry and running models are okay with me because they can be assembled that way...as for models that are prone or on elaborate bases I believe the rulebook says you assume they're of average height anyway. It's a little trickier for me in other cases, like that Catachan thread that was mentioned where the guy has awesome Old Crow vehicles instead of sentinels...it's awesome and obviously wasn't done to try and cheat anyone, but considering they're about half the height and at least twice as long (judging by the looks of them anyway, maybe less than that even) it does present a problem in game. But personally, someone who shows up at the table with chopped and dropped land raiders or valkyries that can somehow fly without wings or tails is when I start to have a problem, especially in the case of the land raider because that's just taking the piss.

I agree with the land raider. The reason why I feel as I do about the Valk is because of the fact that it's already so much harder already to deny line of sight or grant a cover save to. If someone were to challenge my views on the matter, I'd give them the hit and not think any less of it, but do so under the request that we have a thorough discussion on if they should count or not after the fact, time permitting.

Sidstyler wrote:
And another thing, even though warboss is ignoring me now, I still think it's a really bad idea to let Dakka influence that kind of decision. Buy whatever the hell you guys want, don't let someone on the internet talk you out of it. And hell, none of you people even really know me anyway, I may sound pretty dead-set against the idea of cut-down valkyries in this thread but I could turn right around and play several games with you regardless.

Well, I won't go into how childish I feel the use of the ignore button is. If you're resistant to differing opinions, why post online or interact with other people in ANY setting? I love it when people tell me I'm wrong; it helps keep me from becoming solipsistic. As far as letting Dakka influence decisions, the reason why I look at anything in YMDC is because I figure that's representative of what the worst TFG I run into will throw out there. Also, for arguably "soft" issues like this, Dakka has a way of shaping public opinion. I know even before I started posting here, I'd search for stuff I had questions on and this was one of the top sites that popped up. Also, several other people at the FLGS here visit this site regularly. It's a much smaller world than it used to be.

daedalus wrote:Well, I won't go into how childish I feel the use of the ignore button is. If you're resistant to differing opinions, why post online or interact with other people in ANY setting? I love it when people tell me I'm wrong; it helps keep me from becoming solipsistic. As far as letting Dakka influence decisions, the reason why I look at anything in YMDC is because I figure that's representative of what the worst TFG I run into will throw out there. Also, for arguably "soft" issues like this, Dakka has a way of shaping public opinion. I know even before I started posting here, I'd search for stuff I had questions on and this was one of the top sites that popped up. Also, several other people at the FLGS here visit this site regularly. It's a much smaller world than it used to be.

i have no problem with differing opinions and people telling me i'm wrong regarding a rules question. i DO have a problem with someone telling me over and over that i'm cheating and lying about WHY i choose a certain viewpoint. i post questions here to see what the opinions are regarding muddy rules questions, not to have my intentions and character questioned. if i believe someone is trolling (IMO debating the motivations of the poster instead a half dozen times instead of the rules qualifies), i have four options:

1) ignore the thread (unlikely in this case as i'm the OP and interested in the debate and possible answers)

2) report the thread (see above)

3) keep responding until the thread is closed by a mod

4) ignore the troll

I chose the last one.

As for my late night midshift do it yourself picture, it's supposed to illustrate the various examples of supposed modelling for advantage. sid compared chopping off the tail of a valk (the black part) to cutting half a landraider off (also the black part, one view with the bottom half missing and the other the left half missing). i do see a clear difference in the two examples.

The hormagants in my example were not modified in any manner, nor was their base. The whole model was attached to the whole base. Sideways.

I would have issues with someone doing that with hormagants in a game, for generally rules related reasons. The same would apply to only attaching half (or 3/4) of a model. ymmv


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you acknowledge it could be a problem, realize it will be a problem. At least occationally.

This seems to be almost too logical (to me) to bring to a forum -- as it comes across as looking for an excuse to do something that you understand can, will, or should be an issue.

kirsanth wrote:The hormagants in my example were not modified in any manner, nor was their base. The whole model was attached to the whole base. Sideways.

I would have issues with someone doing that with hormagants in a game, for generally rules related reasons. The same would apply to only attaching half (or 3/4) of a model. ymmv

My nids didn't have instructions for assembly. I thought they were supposed to be modeled sleeping. Nids sleep too right?

Relax, I kid. I kid.

kirsanth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you acknowledge it could be a problem, realize it will be a problem. At least occationally.

This seems to be almost too logical (to me) to bring to a forum -- as it comes across as looking for an excuse to do something that you understand can, will, or should be an issue.

Yeah, but with the thousands of things I didn't think would be a problem that turn out to be a problem, I have to assume that most things are. Case in point: All the "seasoned veterans" out there who still think that FNP doesn't include AP2.
I know for all of this "fuzzy" stuff, they say work it out with your opponent beforehand, but that results in a 30+ minute long conversation of stipulation with each person you play, which no longer makes playing even worth it.

Mount with magnets and/or pins. It will be strong enough. Put large ones in the big part of the hull and smaller ones in the parts that come off.

I'm OK with shortening it for a "conversion" as long as you keep it on the high stand. That way, every frakkin' model on the board can see it anyway!

Homer

I can't believe this is still be discussed. It's obvious modeling for an advantage in gaming.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I can't believe this is still be discussed. It's obvious modeling for an advantage in gaming.

G

lol, i think you take the name of this forum too seriously. just because it's called "you make da call" doesn't mean you personally make the call and your word is final.