While it's very easy (seen by how many people have fallen into the trap) to call the other side "rules lawyers" and use ad hominem attacks (anyone with any sense, etc), you should be very careful to avoid becoming the monster that you accuse everyone else of being.

An opponent's meltagun is within 6" of the base, but not within 6" of the hull. Would you allow him to take the 2d6 for penetration?

That's a trick question, of course - if you would have said no, you are just as guilty of rules-bending as these imaginary "rules lawyers" you crusade against.

Allowing the valk's passengers to disembark is making up your own rules for the game. There is no if or wiggle room here, the disembarkation rules are crystal clear.

One of the easiest fallacies is to claim knowledge of developer intent, and it is rampant in these discussions. The valks have drop chutes, which allow it to ignore this issue. Maybe the developers meant for passengers to only leave via these chutes?

Now, to be clear, do I think the valk's passengers should be able to disembark normally? Yes. Would I let an opponent's? Sure. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let him have his cake and eat it too. If it's "logical" and common sense that he can skim and land and disembark, then it's "logical" that I can shoot him then.

Basically what I'm saying is don't assume you know what the developers wanted, because to be frank, you don't. When they tell us (via FAQ or whatever), then we'll know.

And that's perfectly fine. Your tournament, your rules. I'm a little confused, did you get from my post that I was saying there something wrong with that?

My point is realize that you are changing the rules, which like you pointed out, is perfectly okay. But don't criticize other people who want to play by the rules. Just like you have a choice to change them, they have a choice to not, and it's not because they lack common sense or any of the other attacks that go around.

Wait... I'm confused.... are people arguing that the Valkyrie.... a flying TROOP TRANSPORT..... should not be allowed to drop off it's passengers because it doesn't say in the rules that they can?

So you can get yourself a Valkyrie, and fill it with troops... but you can never let them out?

What would be the point of it then?

Quote:

NOTE I was wrong on the part in red. Since the valkrie comes on a base and not a fight stand distances are measured to its base and not hull.

You are wrong on this one too Bob. The Valk is a skimmer. pg 71.

Quote:

As normal for Vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with exception of the vehicles weapons, access points and fire points which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored except whn assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both.

He is correct that to play it otherwise is changing the rules.

I still don't understand why everyone is so upset about all this.

Pretty much anyway you play it the valkyrie is dropping off ten T3 guys with S3 guns and crappy armor. This isn't exactly breaking the game or anything.

I guess you could haul 5 Grey Knight terminators in that thing, but I'm not even all that scared of them.

If I'm playing you can drop off troops using the base, the model, upside down, sideways, whatever.

did anyone email GW? maybe theyve already answered this and just havent FAQed it...

not sure it needs a faQ.. i dont think anyone int his group will say no to letting them disembark.. Well if lupus was using one i would.. but only for him LMAO

Ricter, they do sort of address the grav shute thing in the codex. It says if the Valkyrie "moved flatout" (which I take as meaning, if it went full speed, ie, it's full movement), that the troops are counted as deploying by grav shute and must do dangerous terrain tests and scatter. It doesn't mention grav shutes for when it doesn't move flatout, so we can take that as either A) they do use a grav shute, but it means that they fall straight down without scatter and/or dangerous terrain (this makes sense, as it would mean they would still disembark as normal, but wouldn't have to worry about the horizontal part... I mean, you can't fall 2" and stop mid air until your next turn, they would just keep falling and end the turn) B) it counts as having landed for the disembarking.

Not that it matters, I guess, I mean, would it really have that much of an impact on a game if you took the deployment from the back hatch/side doors exactly, or from the base? It's not life or death, and I really don't feel that this particular item would win or lose a game depending on how you played it, so I find it rather surprising that people are getting so upset about it. It's a grey area, take a deep breath, exhale, and remember that whether you're a stickler on the rules, or you aren't, this is a game, and if you're having a good time, that's the important part, not how precisely one interprets the rules. It'll be nice to have an answer, but it seems like we'll have to wait for it

Hee hee... seems some of the heated discussion has moved to CAG...

Dakka tends to bring the worst out of people, that said there are some good arguments on valid topics there. Just wear your rubber boots cause your going to have to wade through a lot of crap.

It is silly, that GW with all of their supposed "game testing" that none of these issues were discovered.

I could see it being a little tricky on claiming objectives if it is not addressed before the game. The deployment thing really will have little effect on the game.