Valkyrie base debate- check it out

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.

Quote :

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.

Yes... dangerous to deliver developer intent but to be frank who gives a Farthing.

I quote and read intent into BRB page 2. "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important. So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is yours"

In the case of the Valk and other points in the IG codex I would make some calls prior to any organized play if I were the TO since their are questions at large. I'd take liberties and be more then happy to insert my version of how to play it.

If the players didn't like my opinion well.... tough tutus... don't sign up for my event.

When they run a tournament they can call it like they see it.

I may be wrong... Hell I may be dead wrong. But I DON'T care.

I start every tournament with my golden rules. I do this b/c I don't do any comp scores or that bullstuff.

1) Don't be a DICK.
2) Don't be the player that other players don't want to play.
3) Don't be the person that makes other folks want to drop and not come back next year.
4) Have fun. This is a game you are playing with Toy soldiers.

I follow this up with. "If you have rules issues, role off for it or call me over. I'm more then happy to listen to both sides and make a call. Sometimes I role the dice for you. I rarely open the book and sometimes I am wrong. Be prepared to live with this if you call me over. I'm not running the event b/c I know all the rules. I'm running the event b/c I like to see gaming being promoted and folks having a good time."

You'd be surprised at how amicable my events run...and how scared players are to call me over for a ruling.

HOWEVER:

When the IG FAQ from GW or Dakka Dakka came out I'd be happy to use whatever the general population is using but until then I think I can find some reasonable solutions.

IN THE MEANTIME

Over a friendly game I'd play it however the IG player wanted to play it as long as they could look at me in the eye and tell me that this doesn't provide the IG army with a significant advantage.

If they want to shoot in my phase fine. If they want to control objectives at 6 inches and on the ground fine. If they want to disembark from a Valk on the ground go for it. If they wanted to add a commisar to the unit of conscripts, kill them off and bring them back with a new commisar fine.
I you say I can't ram a Valk fine.

The thing is, to be frank, the group on this board is pretty reasonable. I think in games we can come up with reasonable solutions over a table.

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.

Ricter wrote:

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.

You need to read my post. And I agree the rules are clear although it has nothing to do with making up home rules at all.

Ricter wrote:

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?

Agreed. Rather hard to define that line sometimes.

Ricter wrote:

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?

The book clearly states Vehicles without bases are always measured form the hull. Some wiggle room for parts sticking off for LOS.

If the shot is from a none flight based infantry model then according to the rules it is measured from the shooters base. So no modeling an extra long metla gun to get another inch of range.


Come to think of it that sounds like poor planning on GW because unless the metlagun is on an elevated floor it would never get within 6 inches of the hull.

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.

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?

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?

The argument is based on how the valk was made. It had the like 6 inch long clear post that goes into a large oval base.

The rules for disembarking are something like within 3 inches of the hall. But the valk (vertically were talking) is more than 3 inches off the ground.

So some say they cant do it. Its insane.

Some good points were made about the base, since its not the standard base and post it would indeed use the base for measuring.

It makes sense to me as the thing is supposed to be in mid flight so the base is what you actually measure to.

Because both sides are right, if I cant disembark because of the long post then you have suffer that extra distance when you shoot at it.
Same for it, but since when do 3 lascannons care about a couple inches?

archite666 wrote:

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?

The argument is based on how the valk was made. It had the like 6 inch long clear post that goes into a large oval base.

The rules for disembarking are something like within 3 inches of the hall. But the valk (vertically were talking) is more than 3 inches off the ground.

So some say they cant do it. Its insane.

Some good points were made about the base, since its not the standard base and post it would indeed use the base for measuring.

It makes sense to me as the thing is supposed to be in mid flight so the base is what you actually measure to.

Because both sides are right, if I cant disembark because of the long post then you have suffer that extra distance when you shoot at it.
Same for it, but since when do 3 lascannons care about a couple inches?

Again though... why have a troop transport that can't transport troops?

The argument is clearly only being made to devalue the model until the FAQ comes out.

CaelynTek wrote:

archite666 wrote:

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?

The argument is based on how the valk was made. It had the like 6 inch long clear post that goes into a large oval base.

The rules for disembarking are something like within 3 inches of the hall. But the valk (vertically were talking) is more than 3 inches off the ground.

So some say they cant do it. Its insane.

Some good points were made about the base, since its not the standard base and post it would indeed use the base for measuring.

It makes sense to me as the thing is supposed to be in mid flight so the base is what you actually measure to.

Because both sides are right, if I cant disembark because of the long post then you have suffer that extra distance when you shoot at it.
Same for it, but since when do 3 lascannons care about a couple inches?

Again though... why have a troop transport that can't transport troops?

The argument is clearly only being made to devalue the model until the FAQ comes out.

Indeed its amazing how the dakka boys argue and argue and no one looks at the simple things.

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.