Valkyrie base debate- check it out

John Gemrich wrote:

Ricter wrote:

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.

I must have misinterpreted the post. It was 4:50 am when I read and responded. Feel free to disregard.

John he's arguing that we are changing the rules when the book states otherwise. Not sure you owe any apologies since even his disagreement is more of an attack those he seems to hate rather than anything else.

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.

John Gemrich wrote:

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.

Actually the Valkarie has a base and not the transparent flying stand that the older skimmers come with. The whole part on page 71 is quilified by the tranparent flying stand. So I would presume that the rules on page 3 on measuring distances would take precedence except for the regular vehicle firing rules and the access points that are univerally applied.

If GW is smart they will be moving all of the skimmers to bases rather than the clear plastic flight stands. Kind of like how the IG heavy weapon teams went from seperate models onto single stands.

John Gemrich wrote:

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.

You cut out the very first sentence "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent "flying bases" under their hull."

Show me a Valkarie kit with a transparent flying stand instead of a base. It's like the old IG heavy weapon teams and the change to the new ones. Just because I can feild the crew members seperately doesn't mean I can sellectivly remove only the loaders first and then the gunners.

Things may be changing for skimmers.

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.

The Mike Leon wrote:

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

It's just a bunch of rules lawyering. Personal attacks and people ignoring parts of the rules because they just don't the new kit for some reason.

Angry Bob wrote:

The Mike Leon wrote:

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

It's just a bunch of rules lawyering. Personal attacks and people ignoring parts of the rules because they just don't the new kit for some reason.

QFT

Sorry but even IF gw did make a mistake with the rules, which I believe they DID NOT since there are so many holes in the argument.

You must look at the rules intended. Its painfully obvious that the valk is able to disembark, its a freaking transport vehicle.

1. Its obviously intended to drop troops, no matter how you read the rules.
2. It does not come with the normal skimmer base.
3. The section on measuring distance from the hall in 2D, not 3D
4. The base it comes with seems obviousl to be used as many have suggested.

At best id call this argument a clever creation from someone (probably dakka affiliated) and thats about it.

Use the base for disembarking. Easy.

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

CaelynTek wrote:

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?

If you're going to criticize others, please read the rules first, or the other posts in the thread. The Valkyrie has a drop chute ability, which specificially allows any units inside to ignore normal disembarkation rules. Thus, GW may have intended for units to ONLY disembark this way. It's a possibility, but I'm not saying that it is what the developers intended.

Please stop making the ridiculous claim that it can't transport troops, because that's just not true. Stop claiming that's it just to "devalue" the model. Just because you don't like the other argument doesn't make them petty rules lawyers.

@Angry Bob - Get off your high horse. I didn't make any attacks, I didn't say anyone didn't have any common sense, or any of that. Don't claim that I've done something that I have not done. The only side making any "attacks" is the side supporting disembarkation.

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

While your base comment may have some validity in measuring distances for the purpose of objectives or shooting, it also has no relevance to the disembarkation rules, as these still require 2" from the access points.

And please, drop the ******** arguments about people not wanting to play against the new models or whatever. Like I said earlier, I have no problems with people playing that way. 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.

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.

bojesphob1 wrote:

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

Right. To be blunt, I don't give a s$@* about how this ruling turns out - that hasn't been my point at all. Your second paragraph is what I've been trying to get across, perhaps less eloquently.

I'm just saying for people to get off their pedestals - they are not god's gift to earth. You don't call other people idiots for wanting to play by the rules, and your opinion isn't the only one that's valid.

People were so quick to criticize dakka dakka for their insults and childish behavior, but there's plenty of it going on here.

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.

makari wrote:

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.

Right on. This is the right path.

Signed
Robert S