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.

software glitch. rewriting the entire thing.

Please stand by.

Ok so the debate rages on.

Please be mindful that this is a place for discussion not arguing.
please be respectful to anyone voicing themselves and NO name calling and no Cuss words please, Children do read our Forum and the last thing I want is a parent to stop their child from playing because of disrespectful people on this great forum. I know this for a fact as I have had several conversations with parents about their children on our forum.

It is fun to get into a heated discussion but i believe we are all old enough and mature enough to do it without name calling and cussing.

LOL. The forum software ate my first carefully written post because it timed out and coudlnt' back track to the text.

Ricter wrote:

Secondly, I ignored your argument about the valk disembarkation because it doesn't hold any water.

This is an example of your attacks. Not only dissagreeing but being viseral about it.

That however doesn't excuse me of my behavior. I admit to be nasty, snarky, rude when what I should have done was turn the cheek and just say my point.

Further I was wrong to imply that anyone who dissagrees and vocal are doing it because they hate the new model. Lumping so many people into one group is just slander.

My apologies for dirtying up the forum in that manner.

We let ourselves slip into the same additude on that other site.

Ricter wrote:

You make assumptions that simply aren't true, from diagrams that don't actually support your point of view. For example, you say the rules for disembarkation are "inherently horizontal". Except there's one problem with that - it's not true. There is no mention of horizontal in that section of the rules, and the precedent is set in other sections of the rules (such as on p83) that distances are 3d, NOT 2d. Even if this weren't the case, you can't actually infer that those diagrams refer to a 2d distance, because it's a view from above. They would look exactly the same if it was a 2d distance or a 3d distance, so the diagrams do not support your point of view..

An above view of a diagram with a line lenght marked is a 2d depiction. If there is a change the z-axis then another diagram would be needed. A side view or a three quarters view that shows a partial cone zone from the hatch to the base height on the table top. This is basic to drafting and engineering.

The rules for unit coherrancy that I brought up was an example of when the rules dirrectly state an excemption to page 3 base measurements. We cannot take these and force them into the vehicle rules. A vehicile is not a ruin nor is the ruins section a precident for overturning base game mechanics in other sections.

The horizontal part is the only logical way to reconcile the lack of any vertical/diagonal in the section. If a diagonal was important then the they would have made meantion of it somewhere. Instead we are given a horizontal situation in the diagrams and nothing in the written text. The only rules that matter is measuring from the base (not model) in page 3 and the access points section that do not account for the height of the hatches from the table.

For someone to dissprove the diagrams they need to get an errata from a primary source or find written text in that section or elsewhere that explicity states embarking/dissembarking has a vertical/diagonal commponent.

Ricter wrote:

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people can't realize that maybe, just maybe, the other side isn't a bunch of rules laywers, they may just have a valid opinion. Have an argument that doesn't rely on attacking the people behind it.

Unfortunatly any rules dissagrement to a degree is rules lawyering. We're stuck with it for as long as we have rules and arguements. Where we seem to go wrong is injecting a political spin into it. When it becomes more important "how" we dissagree rather than just stating a disspationate position.