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.

I referenced the rules in question, and we are both very well aware of them. You can't modify the model or base for a game advantage. You publicly changed your stance between your first post in the thread (in which you said the modification would be "hardly" any modification at all) and your later ones (in which you changed your stance to claim that there would be no actual modification required; just an angled positioning on the stand).

You've got to be kidding me. "Publicly changed my stance". I entered the discussion because I saw it as a clear cut case. During the discussion I had to go through the rules in order to see if the opposing argument would hold any water and during this process I refined my opinion. Yours still has no basis in rules.

I clearly stated that any actual modification of the model or base would be illegal, and agreed with you that it could be legit and legal if mounting the model at a sufficient angle could be managed without physical modification, and yet you continue to rant, and are unwilling or unable to let the matter rest while we await photopgraphic or physical evidence.

I continue to rant? You might want to check again. To me it seems like you're looking for vindication, a moral victory, an admission of defeat or an apology. None of which you'll get. I could expect the same from you two but I'm not that naive. Now don't get insulted by this because I like you too. I simply won't admit of being wrong or getting called out for it at any point like you suggest in your last edit.

Now, as Kel pointed out, gluing the Valkyrie in an angle steep enough to allow it to fit inside 6" would be mostly counter-productive as the guns wouldn't have line of sight to practically anything. Thanks to Kel for taking the time to take the pictures and measurements. A few things result from this:

a) By your standards, is it modeling for advantage because clearly there is a huge disadvantage in it?
b) By my standards what the pictures show is that a very steep angle is possible while easily staying within the framework of the rules. The fact that the Valkyrie is still over 7" long doesn't make me wrong in any way. Additionally, the fact that the lascannons lose line of sight was an unfortunate side-effect that I didn't expect. I also assumed that Kel's 'extreme angle' or a bit more would have been enough to fit to the table but by his measurements the Valkyrie is still too long. Now I can't see any reason why someone would angle it to fit inside 6" regardless of it quite possibly being legal (either because it's acceptable modeling or because it's modeling for disadvantage).

Yes, I call it ranting when you go on and on in an angry fashion, blindly losing sight of the fact that what you perceived as and are reacting to as "insults" were merely rhetorical devices/attempts to point out to you your own offensive choice of words. I don't need a concession from you. I don't expect one either. If you think you can physically modify a model to gain a game advantage and that people will let you get away with it, have a party. Enjoy.

Kel pointed out that even if you glue it at a 45 degree angle, it's still 7.5" long when viewed from above. So it's still not possible. If you went ahead and glued the thing on there nose-down at like a 60+ degree angle (which is what ArtfcllyFlvrd estimated off hand two pages ago)...

I'm not sure what I'd say. It'd look so silly and unnatural (and as you say, impair its LOS so much) that I don't expect to ever encounter that situation.

that I don't expect to ever encounter that situation.

Naturally you and I and even sourclams were all discussing from a theoretical position. None of us had the model on our hands and none of us could say how steep an angle would be required and whether the guns would still have line of sight or not. My position was based on the fact that in principle I can't see anything against the rules in angling the Valkyrie and it felt like you were against any sort of adaptation untill very late in the thread.

Sure. You and I were both firmly convinced early on of our positions, based on our differing recollections of the size of the model and possible angles of affixation to the base.

I thought (and turned out to be correct) that it would require physical modification, not merely repositioning/legal angling.

Mannahnin wrote:Sure. You and I were both firmly convinced early on of our positions, based on our differing recollections of the size of the model and possible angles of affixation to the base.

I thought (and turned out to be correct) that it would require physical modification, not merely repositioning/legal angling.

That hasn't been proven so you didn't turn out to be correct in one bit (glue isn't a physical modification of any kind to the base as bases are commongly glued to models). All that we discovered from the pictures is that there is a huge disadvantage to gluing the Valkyrie to an enormously steep angle and if anything that only reinforces my position because it's not even an advantage anymore. Your whole argument was based on the whole MfA convention.

Seriously, this is a LAME argument guys. Stop slugging it out, agree to disagree on this matter.

As shown from the pictures, you just can't get it to be less than 6" by angling it, any more angled and it would look dumb. So, if you wanna use the stock model then you can't move on 6" and fire everything.

You want to know the answer? "Counts As". Go find some <6" long toy-army helicopter or transport plane, or whatever. Counts as is completely in the rules. I suspect no one would ever notice it's shorter than a Valk if the 'rule of cool' covered it up well enough.

Personally, I expect in the 6th edition, that vehicles on bases will count their bases as their hulls to avoid this sort of nonsense!

Personally, I expect in the 6th edition, that vehicles on bases will count their bases as their hulls to avoid this sort of nonsense!

Either that or there will be a flyer category with more specific rules.

Therion wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Sure. You and I were both firmly convinced early on of our positions, based on our differing recollections of the size of the model and possible angles of affixation to the base.

I thought (and turned out to be correct) that it would require physical modification, not merely repositioning/legal angling.

That hasn't been proven so you didn't turn out to be correct in one bit (glue isn't a physical modification of any kind to the base as bases are commongly glued to models). All that we discovered from the pictures is that there is a huge disadvantage to gluing the Valkyrie to an enormously steep angle and if anything that only reinforces my position because it's not even an advantage anymore. Your whole argument was based on the whole MfA convention.

As Kel already told us, the farthest he could get it to go/physically fit together with glue is 45 degrees. So you'd have to cut the base or model to get a sharper angle.

Go ahead and cut it, then get a wad of plastic epoxy to melt your base's top and model's bottom together so you can get it to stay on while pointed nose-down at a 60+ degree angle. Enjoy the heck out of that. Keep telling yourself it's not a physical modification, and I'm sure no one will say anything.

Enjoy the heck out of that. Keep telling yourself it's not a physical modification, and I'm sure no one will say anything.

If someone would in fact model his guns facing the ground giving the lascannons an inch or two total in range I'm sure TOs couldn't really invoke the MfA on that guy now could they?

Mannahnin wrote:As Kel already told us, the farthest he could get it to go/physically fit together with glue is 45 degrees. So you'd have to cut the base or model to get a sharper angle.

Sorry one small Correction; I put the Glue-together requirement to the 45* because that was what sourclams had suggested.

You could glue it at a 60* without much of a problem(less of one if you used the back of the flights stand; actually there you could get a 68* downward angle) ; however @ 60*, the Sensor bar actually touches the Base. Also once you get to 60* you are just under 6" from tip-to-tip(about 58 or 59* will be exactly 6")

Of course again such an extreme angle would disallow any shooting beyond about 2" from the base.

I love my protractor.

You could glue it at a 60* without much of a problem(less of one if you used the back of the flights stand; actually there you could get a 68* downward angle) ; however @ 60*, the Sensor bar actually touches the Base. Also once you get to 60* you are just under 6" from tip-to-tip(about 58 or 59* will be exactly 6")

Of course again such an extreme angle would disallow any shooting beyond about 2" from the base.

Thank you for the clarification.

Ah, the Zen of helping without actually helping anyone.

Ah, the Zen of helping without actually helping anyone.

You've no idea how much it'll help me if I can actually get away from this discussion and do some work.

Thanks again, Kel. I really appreciate it.

Therion- Go do your work! No doubt I'm participating with such fervor in part because I'm procrastinating too.

Allright. Tomorrow I'll go buy a Valkyrie and glue it to a 60" angle just because it doesn't require any physical modification. Then I'll shoot a lascannon at anyone who gets under the nose of my plane just because I can. It'll be sweet.

Go get 'em, Tiger. You rule.

I read alot of the posts but not all if this was covered ignore me... y are you guys complaining? Yes they can get shot down easy but what are your other anti tank theres Melta vets in a chimera 155pts for a 12" gun that moves 12 a turn and 6 to shoot then the have weaker armor. Tanks with scatter and 1 shot with them at 150+ points? I think it's clear cut vendetta is your best option. I'd rather pay the 30extrA anyday no contest


As for the hanging off the edge for scatter my battle group always plays center on the model good center off the map bad is that so hard?

Neroku wrote:As for the hanging off the edge for scatter my battle group always plays center on the model good center off the map bad is that so hard?

As long as the entire model's over the table (no wings or tail or anything hanging over empty space) you're all good.

Neroku wrote:I read alot of the posts but not all if this was covered ignore me... y are you guys complaining? Yes they can get shot down easy but what are your other anti tank theres Melta vets in a chimera 155pts for a 12" gun that moves 12 a turn and 6 to shoot then the have weaker armor. Tanks with scatter and 1 shot with them at 150+ points? I think it's clear cut vendetta is your best option. I'd rather pay the 30extrA anyday no contest

What other anti-tank do the Guard have? Seriously? Okay, here goes, in no particular order...

Company command squad (Lascannons, melta)
Psyker Battle Squads (Soulstorm)
Storm Troopers (Meltacide)
Marbo (Demo charge, melta bombs, lol sniper pistol)
Infantry Squads/Platoon Commands (Lascannons, melta)
Special Weapon Squads (Melta, demo charges)
Heavy Weapons Squads (More lascannons!)
Veterans (Lascannons, melta, demovets meltabombing/demo charging)
Penal Legion (Rending tank-stabbing lulz)
Chimeras (HK missiles)
Sentinels (Lascannons again!)
Rough Riders (Hunting lances, melta, krak grenades)
Hellhounds/Bane Wolves (Hull multi-melta)
Devil Dogs (Melta cannon)
Leman Russes (Lascannons, battle cannon, multi-melta sponsons, demolisher cannons, Vanquisher battle cannons)
Basilisks
Medusas
Manticores (Dear god I love these things for killing armour)
Deathstrikes (Lawl)

So yeah, okay not all of them are equally GOOD at killing tanks, but dear sweet jesus that's a whole lot of anti-tank options in the guard codex, and MAN can we take Lascannons in alot of places that aren't Vendettas.

Yeah, we're fine for anti-tank, EVEN without Vendettas.

Edit: Removed the Colossus. It's kinda a long-shot as anti-tank.

Thats not how we play lol as long as the base is on the table rest of the model doesnt matter as long as its Gw base and model per the rules.

Neroku wrote:Thats not how we play lol as long as the base is on the table rest of the model doesnt matter as long as its Gw base and model per the rules.

This is a fairly common mistake, but is definitely a violation of the rules.

The rules for vehicles (see page 56) tell us that when measuring distances to and from vehicles (determining where the model is), we measure to its hull/body. The rules for skimmers on page 71 also clearly tell us the same measuring distances, and that the skimmer's base is ignored for all purposes except assault (enemy units can also assault the base if they can't reach the hull; though assaulting a vehicle's hull is what you normally do). The IG FAQ (linked below) also adds that for embarking or disembarking, or contesting objectives, you also may measure from the base for a Valkyrie or Vendetta, since they are so tall.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490293a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf

But for all other purposes, as with ALL vehicles, you measure to and from the hull- the body of the vehicle.

The main rulebook FAQ clearly states that models may not move (that means any part of them) off the table, as "All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!" (page 1). It also states that any model which fails to move completely onto the table from Reserve is destroyed (page 6).

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620222a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_2.pdf

Hm, maybe a bit off-topic but it concerns modelling for advantage without really modifying the stock models: what if a Marine army has an all-kneeling army with drop pods, so that the tacs can land on objectives and hug cover (from the pods) more efficiently and/or scouts infiltrating on cover (with camo cloaks, of course). It is a sucky list/tactic, but one can plainly see that the pose of the models chosen are there to compliment the army tactic (hugging objectives).

Does it count as modelling for advantage, even though nothing is changed on the models themselves?

starsdawn wrote:Hm, maybe a bit off-topic but it concerns modelling for advantage without really modifying the stock models: what if a Marine army has an all-kneeling army with drop pods, so that the tacs can land on objectives and hug cover (from the pods) more efficiently and/or scouts infiltrating on cover (with camo cloaks, of course). It is a sucky list/tactic, but one can plainly see that the pose of the models chosen are there to compliment the army tactic (hugging objectives).

Does it count as modelling for advantage, even though nothing is changed on the models themselves?

This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Besides, to make whole squads composed of kneeling/skulking models, the owner must have spent a fortune collecting models, as for every kneeling figure he will have 9 otherwise normal ones he is not using....so I say if he has spent that much then kudos to him....

I will just rain indirect fire ordnance on the squad anyway...

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

For the marines, you did not actually modify anything..yes you chose the low models, but they are "stock models"..for the vendetta, you actually did something else to force the model to be angled, since a "stock" model is not posed that way...which for me is the difference....

It is a "gray" area for sure, and to be honest would depend on the interpretation of the local group...

I'm going to just throw it out there that similarly to some others that have posted, the TO of a tournament I am participating in next month ruled that so long as the base is on the table, that is sufficient for movement on.

The thoughts behind it were two-fold:
1) This is the only model that is actually negatively affected by this rule in this way in the entire game. The commonly held belief (at least locally) is that it was not designed that way to prevent it shooting all weapons coming in from reserve, but simply to look cool. The feeling is that this rule was brought in for situations like tanks immobilizing on the way in from reserves, and was never intended to discuss skimmers. Again, just a local opinion. They could have just as easily have built it as a wider, less long helicopter and we wouldn't even be having this chat.

2) The base is what matters for all rules items (other than shooting from or to it).

Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

freddieyu1 wrote:

starsdawn wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:
This cuts both ways..as it means those marines will have difficulty shooting over obstacles and such...and is for me a poor use of their points...

Well it is analogous to angling the Vendetta so that it faces the ground: it limits its firepower so that it can enter the board more easily. With this it limits the LOS of the marines for their survivability.

Sure, both "modifications" have their disadvantages (which may outweigh the advantages at hand), but that is irrelevant. The hypothetical fact is the models are chosen to get a specific advantage, in this case hugging cover. So is it modelling for advantage? If so, is it the acceptable kind of modelling for advantage (since it still has a lot of disadvantages) or is modelling for advantage illegal, disadvantages or no?

For the marines, you did not actually modify anything..yes you chose the low models, but they are "stock models"..for the vendetta, you actually did something else to force the model to be angled, since a "stock" model is not posed that way...which for me is the difference....

It is a "gray" area for sure, and to be honest would depend on the interpretation of the local group...

Well, how would folks in Galleria and/or RHGC interpret it?

No, I'm not trying to use it. I'm just curious.

Fearspect wrote:
Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

I know you don't want to debate it, but there is no debate to be had. If you're not counting the wings/tail as the hull, you're not playing the game correctly.

You can say that you see it two different ways, but one way is wrong. This is one of the few issues that GW is very clear on. They had skimmers before 5th was introduced. They could have easily said "Skimmer hulls don't count similarly to other vehicle hulls." But they didn't. They also could've modelled the Valkryie differently, but they didn't. Mannanhin has it exactly right - this is a clear cut case. There aren't "two sides of the argument" - there are the people that are playing by the rules, and the people that aren't.

If you're not counting the tail as a part of the hull, then later on in the game, I can't shoot at the tail if I can see it? If I -can- shoot the tail, then it is a part of the hull and it should never be allowed to hang off of the edge. What about Land Raiders? Just because they're huge and can't entirely make it onto the board from reserves, will you just let them hang off the edge?

People can say there is an argument going on, but there isn't. There are the rules (all parts of the Valkyrie are the hull, and the hull is used for all measurement, except for assault, objectives and embarking/disembarking) and then there are house rules (the rules in which you allow your opponent to hang his model off the side of the board - which is giving him a wonderful advantage.)

In that case, can I just bring my Valkyrie 2" onto the board so you can barely target it at all?

puma713 wrote:

Fearspect wrote:
Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

I know you don't want to debate it, but there is no debate to be had. If you're not counting the wings/tail as the hull, you're not playing the game correctly.

You can say that you see it two different ways, but one way is wrong. This is one of the few issues that GW is very clear on. They had skimmers before 5th was introduced. They could have easily said "Skimmer hulls don't count similarly to other vehicle hulls." But they didn't. They also could've modelled the Valkryie differently, but they didn't. Mannanhin has it exactly right - this is a clear cut case. There aren't "two sides of the argument" - there are the people that are playing by the rules, and the people that aren't.

If you're not counting the tail as a part of the hull, then later on in the game, I can't shoot at the tail if I can see it? If I -can- shoot the tail, then it is a part of the hull and it should never be allowed to hang off of the edge. What about Land Raiders? Just because they're huge and can't entirely make it onto the board from reserves, will you just let them hang off the edge?

People can say there is an argument going on, but there isn't. There are the rules (all parts of the Valkyrie are the hull, and the hull is used for all measurement, except for assault, objectives and embarking/disembarking) and then there are house rules (the rules in which you allow your opponent to hang his model off the side of the board - which is giving him a wonderful advantage.)

In that case, can I just bring my Valkyrie 2" onto the board so you can barely target it at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage

Fearspect wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Fearspect wrote:
Mannanihn explains the fact that the wings and tail are considered part of the hull as if this is gospel, but I know for a fact that there are large groups on each side of this argument. I don't want to debate this last item, this is not the place for it, but we can agree that people see the hull issue in different ways. By extension, I think you can see that this ruling is also being viewed different ways, and that no one is cheating just because they say the base is what matters for movement.

I know you don't want to debate it, but there is no debate to be had. If you're not counting the wings/tail as the hull, you're not playing the game correctly.

You can say that you see it two different ways, but one way is wrong. This is one of the few issues that GW is very clear on. They had skimmers before 5th was introduced. They could have easily said "Skimmer hulls don't count similarly to other vehicle hulls." But they didn't. They also could've modelled the Valkryie differently, but they didn't. Mannanhin has it exactly right - this is a clear cut case. There aren't "two sides of the argument" - there are the people that are playing by the rules, and the people that aren't.

If you're not counting the tail as a part of the hull, then later on in the game, I can't shoot at the tail if I can see it? If I -can- shoot the tail, then it is a part of the hull and it should never be allowed to hang off of the edge. What about Land Raiders? Just because they're huge and can't entirely make it onto the board from reserves, will you just let them hang off the edge?

People can say there is an argument going on, but there isn't. There are the rules (all parts of the Valkyrie are the hull, and the hull is used for all measurement, except for assault, objectives and embarking/disembarking) and then there are house rules (the rules in which you allow your opponent to hang his model off the side of the board - which is giving him a wonderful advantage.)

In that case, can I just bring my Valkyrie 2" onto the board so you can barely target it at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage

Are you trying to claim that if I shoot off the rudders of an aircraft it'll just fly on merrily as if nothing happened?