There seems to be a new debate pertaining to the new I.G. Valkyrie base and embarking/disembarking and capturing/controlling objectives. Check it out here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/241595.page

I always thought that it was assumed to have landed when people disembark from it. That's why when it's moving full out, you have to do the grav shute rule. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's how I read it. Same with the capturing/controlling, it lands, or hovers, over the objective, ready to drop it's guys off if it needs to. The only bad thing about that interpretation would be that everyone can see and shoot at it at it's full base height, even if it's thought to be hovering close to the ground or landed.

it hurts my head... all the off topic posts... all of the yelling at people... sigh.. i dont know about the valk... would be pretty Assanine to not allow a TRANSPORT to disembark its passengers... BUT it does clearly state must be within 2 inches of an access point...

I wash my hands of this argument... and ill wait for INATFAQ or GW to rule on it..

As far as I'm concerned (and I don't play I.G.), I would let them disembark/embark as normal. Rules lawyer d*ck's would probably argue the issue. I'm all about RAW, but let's get real.

Solution: cut down the bases to the needed height, then there will be no arguement to have to deal with. You will also be able to use terrain better for cover.

I think in this case (it is supplied with that awesome base) you just assume it's in range.

Pretty dumb argument. Maybe a conversion to have two base poles attachable.

For rational folks embark and disembark is no issue


Good points around controlling objectives IMO..

For example:
If an objective is placed on the third floor then you can't claim it w/ troop units 3 floors below.


LOS... too.

The issue is that by declaring it a skimmer the skimmer rules for measurering LOS become to and from the vehicle. The skimmer rules don't let you take it off the stand.

For tournaments you should play on the base you are provided. ie. If you showed up at a tournament with an Orc head looking out of a sewer grate as a cool mini for your infiltrators how do you treat that for LOS? Answer is you sub in a miniature on a normal base at normal height when determining LOS.

Same is true if you build the base "way up".

All in all a group of reasonable players or a good TO will make a ruling and stick with it prior to a tournament but it needs a good FAQing.

Definitely agree on those points John.

Perhaps quick and dirty card board cut outs for a few different angles (full front, slightly angled, side, rear, etc) to swap in for determining LOS in these situations.

We sorta talked about this at ACME on Saturday. Mac had his valks not glued to the stands. So he "landed" them when he dropped off dudes. Case solved.

People are going to bitch no matter what. That's the "awesome" of forums!

ok... So i like the idea on dakka dakka.. its like a helicopter... it flies at altitude.. then when it needs to embark or disembark it drops down for a second then goes back up... that way 'fluff wise' its still as tall as its stand.. but realistically it can still embark and disembark.. id say just disembark within 2" of the base where the hatches are..

thats the way ill play it.. well, if i ever get an IG opponent with a valk..

I'm getting the feeling those who are inciting this argument, are just trying to devalue the model so they don't get their censored handed to them by IG.

Anyone with a bit of sense would understand that the model is a flying troop transport and as such should be able to somehow disembark and embark troops.

Being the way it is, I see it like the drop ship from Aliens... it flies in, drops to the ground for as little amount of time as possible, picks up and/or drops off troops, then flies off.

I see no reason why you can't just take the stand off (physically or symbolically) for the embarkation and disembarkation phase, then put it back on again when it moves along it's merry way.

If the upcoming GW FAQ on the subject put's it any other way than that I'd be very surprised.

Couldn't get past the first page, it was too much.

At any rate the rules on the hatches are inherently horizontal. Distances for most models are measured from the base, that's in the basic mechanics section. In the vehicle section they show a full two inch disembarking from hatches. Those hatches are elevated from the table (not touching the table surface). Further there is no mention of an diagonal from the bottom of the hatch and the model base being taken into account. Therefor the vertical height doesn't count for case of embarking and dissembarking.

Unless of course they had a massive misprint of the current and previous rule sets. Which isn't impossible, just very unlikely.


If they want a real geek argument try dealing with someone who opens said hatch to increase the two-inch zone volume and close it afterwords. Is it cheese, nothing at all, who cares? LOL

It is dakka dakka, they had a 12 page debate about if Nob bikers can assault 12" because they move 12". It is a self proffessed powergaming site and the outright rules "bending" they do is what I think leads to a lot of the turnament hate you see. After awhile what they try to pull to win "plastic menz" stops being funny and just makes you feel sad.

Sexiest_hero wrote "It is a self proffessed powergaming site"

I'll agree with you on that, but most of Dakka is just tournament players looking for hard lists to play in tournaments. The problem is with the few rules lawyers who look for loop holes in the wording ect. and of course the occasional d__k head that hates the world and just wants to argue about something no matter how trivial. That's not just on the Dakka site, You can find the rule lawyers on just about every major forum site.

Whenever there is any form of writing that lays out rules or laws, there will be a group of people who will go out of their way to find loopholes and/or misinterpret the text, either intentionally or un-intentionally.

It has always been that way, in contract law, criminal law, military regulations, religious texts, and yes.... game rules, be it sports, board games, role playing game or tabletop games.

These kind of people have always existed and will always exist, and now that we have the internet....... they will go out of their way to make themselves known and annoy us all, using their +20 magical internet shield to protect themselves from harm.

It reminds me of an argument a long while ago when the site first started, by R.A.W. (rules as written) Blood Angels rhinos didn't have any points to get in or out of. The book writers assumed people understood that all rhinos have the same layout. Instead of tactics on how to win or use units, it usually boils down to "take this list, or you suck". It leads to people bringing lists they have no Idea how to play. CaelynTek that D&D crack you made hit the mark in more ways than one, bravo!

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.