Valkyrie base question

[wolflold]

Hi,

I played a battle yesterday with my IG and was playing against Ravenwing! I had a Valkyrie and kept it in reserve, the moment i made the reserve roll and wanted to outflank and shoot 2 lascannons in the face of his commander. He said i could only shoot 1 lascannon because the whole model must fit on the table and not just the base! I wasn't in for disscussion so i agreed to shoot 1 lascannon, but i still think its weird! I always mesure everything from the base if it has one.

So my question is do you mesure from the base or model? If its the model that would suck because you will never be able to shoot 2 weapons if you move on the table!

[musical-fool]

I always go from the base now, as it erases all need of argument and unfairness in figs overlapping the edge of the base.

For tanks and models that do not have a base this gets fairly tricky and I tend to measure from the weapon and not the central hull of the machine.

[ToBeWilly]

You measure all distances, except those noted, from the hull of a vehicle. See page 56 and 71 of the BRB.

Edit: So, your friend was right in everything he said.

[RebelGrot]

I'm sure in one of the recent FAQ's it said about Stormravens wings can be off the table/over terrain/over other models and it didn't matter - it was the base that counted for placement/terrain tests etc.
Measuring though should come from the turret/hull/weapon though as previously mentioned

[ToBeWilly]

I'm sure in one of the recent FAQ's it said about Stormravens wings can be off the table/over terrain/over other models and it didn't matter - it was the base that counted for placement/terrain tests etc.
Measuring though should come from the turret/hull/weapon though as previously mentioned
It says nothing about the table edge! I've added all relevant Q & A's.

Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

Q: Can a vehicle that is moving on from reserves
perform a tank shock? (p68)
A: Yes it can, declare the distance it is going to move
along with its direction and move the tank onto the
board that many inches, measuring from the board
edge as for a normal from reserve. The tank shock is
performed as usual. However, if the tank is forced to
stop for any reason before the entire vehicle is on the
board then the vehicle, and any embarked units, count
as destroyed and are removed from play.

Q: Are a vehicle’s wings considered to be part of its
hull? (p60)
A: Yes.

Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
A: Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly
specify that they can. All good wargamers know that
the edge of the table is the end of the world!(emphasis mine)

[Tynskel]

yes, but there are many other FAQs from GW that allow the model to hang off the edge when moving onto the board. All that matters is that the base completely moves on, but after that, the entire model must be on the board.

[Archon Charybdis]

yes, but there are many other FAQs from GW that allow the model to hang off the edge when moving onto the board. All that matters is that the base completely moves on, but after that, the entire model must be on the board.

Do you have an example of one? ToBeWilly quoted most of the relevant valk/flyer FAQs I could think of, and as is there's no exception to the hull needing to be entirely on the board.

[ToBeWilly]

yes, but there are many other FAQs from GW that allow the model to hang off the edge when moving onto the board. All that matters is that the base completely moves on, but after that, the entire model must be on the board.
The base is ignored, except for assault, embarking/disembarking and terrain. They are the only exceptions given. All other measurements must be taken from the hull. Therefore, if any part of the hull is not on the table then the whole model is not on the table, and is destroyed. If you have an FAQ that says otherwise, please share it. I couldn't find one.

[Tynskel]

There was a recent one, I believe it was game of thrones on GW's site. Just look for rules for GW tournaments. They cover bases for Valks/Stormravens/Voidravens/Voidbombers.



http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=300002&section=community&pIndex=19&aId=17400032a&start=20&multiPageMode=true


Also note, the lack of allies for witch hunters. I find it interesting that they have essentially dismantled allies. The 2nd half of their codex should be coming next week or so.

[Silversurfer]

I don't understand :
_ how you can shoot 2 lascanons from a valkyrie ... then it should be a vendetta ...
_ if you have 2 lascanons on your valkyrie, why can't you shoot both of them as far as you need to fly only 6" to put the whole base on the board and then you use the FaQ :

Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.

Is the base of the valkyrie in the open field on the table ? Yes, so the whole vehicule is in the open field on the table ...

[ToBeWilly]

There was a recent one, I believe it was game of thrones on GW's site. Just look for rules for GW tournaments. They cover bases for Valks/Stormravens/Voidravens/Voidbombers.



http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=300002&section=community&pIndex=19&aId=17400032a&start=20&multiPageMode=true


Also note, the lack of allies for witch hunters. I find it interesting that they have essentially dismantled allies. The 2nd half of their codex should be coming next week or so.
Notice how they state, "This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question."
This is a tournament specific ruling. It is not an official FAQ.

They also state:
"What FAQs or Errata will be used to sort rules issues?

The most recent GW FAQs will be used."

[ToBeWilly]

I don't understand :
_ how you can shoot 2 lascanons from a valkyrie ... then it should be a vendetta ...
_ if you have 2 lascanons on your valkyrie, why can't you shoot both of them as far as you need to fly only 6" to put the whole base on the board and then you use the FaQ :

Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.

Is the base of the valkyrie in the open field on the table ? Yes, so the whole vehicule is in the open field on the table ...
The edge of the table is not terrain. It is the edge of the table.

[Tynskel]

Whatever, dude.
It is an official GW tournament. They are making an exception for extremely large models. For all intents and purposes, this is Canon.

Another good example is a Super Heavy tank. They can't enter a board? I guess the thought of them entering the table causes them to explode.

[ToBeWilly]

Whatever, dude.
It is an official GW tournament. They are making an exception for extremely large models. For all intents and purposes, this is Canon.

Another good example is a Super Heavy tank. They can't enter a board? I guess the thought of them entering the table causes them to explode.
Yes, it is an official GW tournament, and they made an exception. If they wanted to change the FAQ they could have. They didn't.
There are other tournament sponsored FAQs that rule otherwise as well. One of the biggest is the INAT FAQ. These FAQs mean nothing, unless you are playing in that tournament. It is the rule book and the GW official FAQs that matter for official rules. With that being said, if you and your opponent agree, you may play it however you like. Thats the beauty of this game.

Also, super heavies are not, by rule, allowed in regular Warhammer 40,000 games. They are not in any codex. Again, with your opponents consent, you can play it however you'd like.

[RebelGrot]

Cheers for the quotes. Which FAQ are they from? (I was looking for these the other day)

It's all very RAW/RAI


It says nothing about the table edge! I've added all relevant Q & A's.

Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.
In the same way that we all know the board edge is "the end of the world" we all know we can't place models on top of other models, within 1" of enemy etc or off the table edge. The first two are clearly dismissed here, I would include the table edge in that.

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.
Another grey area - a 6" move gets my whole hull and base on the table but the tail overhangs - destroyed?

Q: Can a vehicle that is moving on from reserves
perform a tank shock? (p68)
A: Yes it can, declare the distance it is going to move
along with its direction and move the tank onto the
board that many inches, measuring from the board
edge as for a normal from reserve. The tank shock is
performed as usual. However, if the tank is forced to
stop for any reason before the entire vehicle is on the
board then the vehicle, and any embarked units, count
as destroyed and are removed from play.

Q: Are a vehicle’s wings considered to be part of its
hull? (p60)
A: Yes.
This is really a reference for shooting at a flyer as the wings are dismissed as hull for other purposes previously

Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)
A: Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly
specify that they can. All good wargamers know that
the edge of the table is the end of the world!(emphasis mine)
So one wing is over a building with one of your models stood underneath it and is fine yet the other is 5mm over the table edge so it's an illegal move? Doesn't that sound silly to you?


You definitely win the RAW side of things regarding what is a hull etc.

BUT is there a rule where it says that a wing tip/tank sponson/extended arm on a model/anything cannot hang over the table edge or that if it does any weapon held/attached becomes useless? The model is not moving off the table as that is not allowed (maybe there's just a little overhang due to angle or space requirements etc.) I would say, in general game terms, we usually interpret that the table edge is impassable terrain but as far as I can remember it's not really mentioned. If this is the case then wings, as previously quoted do not count for purposes of being over or in terrain.

Going with your the edge of the table is the table comment there's not anything in the movement or mission section (unless I missed it) that says we can't do this.

Finally - regarding moving on, what are peoples opinions on this for flyers? I usually measure movement using my Stormraven base (purely because it's easier at ground level) but to move on to the table use the nose of the hull (or I'd gain a 1.5" advantage). If I moved on 6" the whole base would just be on but the tail (not technically part of the hull?) wouldn't. So therefore, hull or not, I'm not totally on - what would you say?

[Tynskel]

Yes, it is an official GW tournament, and they made an exception. If they wanted to change the FAQ they could have. They didn't.
There are other tournament sponsored FAQs that rule otherwise as well. One of the biggest is the INAT FAQ. These FAQs mean nothing, unless you are playing in that tournament. It is the rule book and the GW official FAQs that matter for official rules. With that being said, if you and your opponent agree, you may play it however you like. Thats the beauty of this game.

Also, super heavies are not, by rule, allowed in regular Warhammer 40,000 games. They are not in any codex. Again, with your opponents consent, you can play it however you'd like.

Dude, do not bring up the INAT FAQ. That is the biggest piece of garbage. Half of the rulings in that FAQ have no foundation for justification within the rulebook. It is a bunch of @$$holes that decided to change the rules for no reason.

Actually, no. Spearhead is a variation of the rules that allows super heavies. It isn't Apoc with crazy made up rules. You can, and I have, played spearhead in tournaments.

[Silversurfer]

So, if the base is on the table, then the model is on the table ... that's what is said in the FaQ, because then we don't care about the model itself but only its base. The fact that the table edge is terrain or not is not important in this case because the table contains the base which contains the model (for those kind of purpose as stated in the FaQ). It's pure and logical mathematic.

Another problem which is not solved :
You can't actually deepstrike with a squadron of 2 (or more) valkyries because models which deepstrike need to be base to base and it's quite impossible with those models.

[Kawauso]

Well, sometimes you can't -actually- get infantry models in base-to-base...in fact, most of the time I find that it's not really possible to do it (i.e. gaunts extend far over the front of their bases, a lot of bulkier models like jump infantry find it hard to cram into 'true' BTB contact with other models, etc.). I've always played it/seen it played as 'as close to BTB as is physically possible'...and no one's ever complained. I'd say this goes for Valkyries deep striking. They're clearly supposed to be able to do it. As long as you can cluster them as close as physically possible I don't see how there could be any issues.

[ToBeWilly]

Lets look at this another way. If you are deploying a skimmer, on a large ovel base, in a Spearhead deployment, and you wanted to deploy it at the 12" mark from the center of the table. What point on the model would you be measuring from? The nose of the model, or the edge of the base. If you measured from the edge of the base, not only would you be breaking the rules for measuring distances for skimmers, (page 71 of the BRB) but about 1" to 1.5" would be within 12" of the center of the table. So, why do you get to do it differently when coming on the table from reserves? You don't. You still must follow the same rules for measuring distances for skimmers.

The Gaming Surface is also defined on page 88 of the BRB. The gaming surface ends at the table's edge.

BRB page 3 says, "A model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

BRB page 56 says, "...Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)." A tail or wing is not a decorative element.

BRB page 71 sats, "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measued to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both." And the exceptions in the FAQs, which were already listed above.

[ToBeWilly]

Dude, do not bring up the INAT FAQ. That is the biggest piece of garbage. Half of the rulings in that FAQ have no foundation for justification within the rulebook. It is a bunch of @$$holes that decided to change the rules for no reason.
They're both tournament exceptions, nothing more.


Actually, no. Spearhead is a variation of the rules that allows super heavies. It isn't Apoc with crazy made up rules. You can, and I have, played spearhead in tournaments.
You said it yourself, Spearhead is a variation of the rules. It is not a regular game of WH40k.

[Tynskel]

Spearhead is not a variation of the rules. It is a variation of the Force Organization Chart. None of the rules are changed. You should read the 40k rulebook section on game setup– The FOC is designed to be modified. Apoc actually physically changes rules.

Spearhead is a regular game of 40k, it is just not a commonly played game of 40k.

No, they are not tournament exceptions, the GW rules are canon. Things, like the INAT FAQ, for example, are crap.

[ToBeWilly]

Spearhead is not a variation of the rules. It is a variation of the Force Organization Chart. None of the rules are changed. You should read the 40k rulebook section on game setup– The FOC is designed to be modified. Apoc actually physically changes rules.

Spearhead is a regular game of 40k, it is just not a commonly played game of 40k.

No, they are not tournament exceptions, the GW rules are canon. Things, like the INAT FAQ, for example, are crap.

If you are playing a game with modified FOC, then you are not playing a regular game of WH40k. You are playing a modified game of WH40k. And need your opponents consent. A regular game of WH40k is a game using the Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book. If you are doing anything different, then it is not a regular game. Which is fine, as long as your opponent knows that.

And about the tournament FAQ, it says its an exception to the normal rules. I really don't know what else to tell you.
"...This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question."

It also tells you, "What FAQs or Errata will be used to sort rules issues?

The most recent GW FAQs will be used."

[Tynskel]

Yes, but it is clearly showing a problem with the rules and GW taking the initiative to fix it. It is canon because it is coming from GW.

No, playing spearhead is playing an uncommon game of 40k, not playing a modified game. I think you are being silly, because you have to have your opponent's consent to play 40k in any shape form or fashion. A regular game of 40k using the rulebook? I think you need to read through the rulebook more. The 'standard' mission and design are not the only missions in the rulebook. If you look at the section past the fluff, you'll notice a whole slew of missions and different game setups.

Just because these missions are not played often, does not mean they are not part of the regular 40k game. More pointedly, they may not be part of *your* regular play.

[Silversurfer]

Lets look at this another way. If you are deploying a skimmer, on a large ovel base, in a Spearhead deployment, and you wanted to deploy it at the 12" mark from the center of the table. What point on the model would you be measuring from? The nose of the model, or the edge of the base. If you measured from the edge of the base, not only would you be breaking the rules for measuring distances for skimmers, (page 71 of the BRB) but about 1" to 1.5" would be within 12" of the center of the table. So, why do you get to do it differently when coming on the table from reserves? You don't. You still must follow the same rules for measuring distances for skimmers.


Those are 2 different points because do we need to measure something to know where is stationed the vehicule ?

No, so when you need a measurement, apply the rules you quoted and when you have to know where is your vehicule, apply the FaQ ... so simple. Because if you don't do as I sayed, then you break the rules ...

[RebelGrot]

I get where you're coming from with the skimmer quotes and all that, very RAW as I mentioned. The problem is that was all written before the introduction of the models and bases in question so I think it's all up for a little interpretation. Main example being the quotation regarding the clear flying base specifically. We aren't talking about clear flying bases, we're talking about big plastic ovals with aircraft stuck on them. Guess we wait for things to be cleared up when 6th comes round.

Anyway, I'm happy how it works in all my games so far so I guess I just hope not to come up against a rules-lawer type any time soon.

Also, can you let me know which FAQ the wings over terrain bit is from, wanted it the other day and couldn't find. Cheers :)

[ToBeWilly]

Yes, but it is clearly showing a problem with the rules and GW taking the initiative to fix it. It is canon because it is coming from GW.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree.


No, playing spearhead is playing an uncommon game of 40k, not playing a modified game. I think you are being silly, because you have to have your opponent's consent to play 40k in any shape form or fashion. A regular game of 40k using the rulebook? I think you need to read through the rulebook more. The 'standard' mission and design are not the only missions in the rulebook. If you look at the section past the fluff, you'll notice a whole slew of missions and different game setups.

Just because these missions are not played often, does not mean they are not part of the regular 40k game. More pointedly, they may not be part of *your* regular play.
I apologize, I assumed spearhead was an expansion book like PlanetStrike or Apocalypse.
I should have said "standard" not "regular" in my previous post. Again, I apologize for not being clear.

[ToBeWilly]

I get where you're coming from with the skimmer quotes and all that, very RAW as I mentioned. The problem is that was all written before the introduction of the models and bases in question so I think it's all up for a little interpretation. Main example being the quotation regarding the clear flying base specifically. We aren't talking about clear flying bases, we're talking about big plastic ovals with aircraft stuck on them. Guess we wait for things to be cleared up when 6th comes round.
I agree, the Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens are poorly conceived models shoehorned into the existing skimmer rules. It doesn't work well at all. But, they are the rules we have for them until GW changes them.
On a forum about rules questions, the only way we can answer is rule as written. We didn't write the rules, so we don't know the intent. We can only guess at the intent.


Anyway, I'm happy how it works in all my games so far so I guess I just hope not to come up against a rules-lawer type any time soon.

Also, can you let me know which FAQ the wings over terrain bit is from, wanted it the other day and couldn't find. Cheers :)Sorry I missed this earlier. Here's where all Errata and FAQs are.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/articleCategory.jsp?communityArticleCatId=1000018&articleCatId=1000018&catId=cat440134a&section=

[eldargal]

What is a regular game of 40k then? Just stuff from the BRB? Well that would exclude codices. Codices are official rules supplements you say, well so is Spearhead. They are all 40k, they are all regular 40k as they are all official. Whether or not you use them does not make them any more or less 40k than any other part. You are using false distinctions to try and support your case. Spearhead is a variation, but so is every mission type past Dawn of War in the BRB.

As to large flying bases, the tournament ruling is quite clear in regards to Games Workshops intent, for movement related issues (such as coming on the board from reserves) the flying base is used. It is still a GW FAQ, as GoT is a GW tournament, it shows how they intend you to treat it. Arguing otherwise is an extremely low attempt at gaining an advantage of armies that have skimmers which use the large flying base. The fact that these large flyers were shoehorned in does nothing to change the fact that GW have produced a clear example of how their movement is to be treated.



They're both tournament exceptions, nothing more.


You said it yourself, Spearhead is a variation of the rules. It is not a regular game of WH40k.

[ToBeWilly]

What is a regular game of 40k then? Just stuff from the BRB? Well that would exclude codices. Codices are official rules supplements you say, well so is Spearhead. They are all 40k, they are all regular 40k as they are all official. Whether or not you use them does not make them any more or less 40k than any other part. You are using false distinctions to try and support your case. Spearhead is a variation, but so is every mission type past Dawn of War in the BRB.
I was originally commenting on having super-heavies in "regular" games of WH40k. I should have said "Standard Mission" games. I was unclear, and apologized for it.


As to large flying bases, the tournament ruling is quite clear in regards to Games Workshops intent, for movement related issues (such as coming on the board from reserves) the flying base is used. It is still a GW FAQ, as GoT is a GW tournament, it shows how they intend you to treat it.
Taken from: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=300002&section=community&pIndex=19&aId=17400032a&start=20&multiPageMode=true
"THRONE OF SKULLS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Listed below are some common questions about the event..."

This deals with the tournament only. If GW's intent was as you say, why is it not with all the other FAQs?


Arguing otherwise is an extremely low attempt at gaining an advantage of armies that have skimmers which use the large flying base. The fact that these large flyers were shoehorned in does nothing to change the fact that GW have produced a clear example of how their movement is to be treated.
How is it a "low attempt"? Applying the same rules to one model that applies to all other models is gaining an advantage? It can still move on the table from reserve, it just has to move more then 6". Landraiders have to move more then 6" to enter from reserve. Why is it so hard to believe these models will too.

[eldargal]

It is low because you are trying to gain advantage at the expense of armies with the new style flying bases by exploiting a grey area of the rules. As you say these new, large flyers have been shoehorned rather awkwardly into the ruleset, a ruleset that was geared towards smaller, more contained vehicles such as Land Raiders, Grav Tanks and the like that lack the wider wing spans or length of the new models. GW has shown intent to judge movement related issues for the larger flying base by using the base, no doubt it will addressed in a future rule update. Until then we should look to how GW are handling it, and they say it is the base that is judged in these situations.

A GW tournament using GW rules, again you are trying to create false distinctions. It is a Games Workshop Tournament run with Games Workshop rules so any rule FAQs are applicable to Games Workshop rules.

[Silversurfer]

GW has shown intent to judge movement related issues for the larger flying base by using the base, no doubt it will addressed in a future rule update. Until then we should look to how GW are handling it, and they say it is the base that is judged in these situations.

I do agree and that's exactly what is written in the rules and in the FaQ :
_ when you measure, you use the general rule about skimmers
_ when you need to know where are models, where to embark and disembark then you use what is said in the FaQ and you then you use the base

The only grey areas I can see is about :
_ assaulting the valkyrie : do assault troops need to assault the base or just need to assault the footprint on the ground ?
_ deep striking squadrons ... there is nothing about such rules interactions ...

[RebelGrot]

I think the rain rulebook FAQ is less recent than the TOS tournament one (correct if wrong) so that would easily explain why it's not in the main FAQ.

Plus we know how these things work - if a rule for situation X is cleared up in the Dark Eldar FAQ it will apply to same situations for other codex. While someone might argue that 'well situation X in the DE FAQ is just for them, my Tau still don't have a ruling for situation X in our army.' that's just being cheesey.

The same would go, for me, with this:

"This is an exception to the rule that states that a model that cannot completely move onto the table counts as destroyed, and this exception is made to take into consideration the protruding wings and tail sections of the models in question.

Note that the base is also used in relation to enemy models, and as long as the Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven's base is not within 1" of enemy models at the end of its movement, it is perfectly legal to have enemy or friendly models, terrain, etc. underneath the wing, tail or nose of the vehicle."

Measuring from the base is also mentioned for moving onto the board which further disqualifies the BRB 'ignore the base' rule.

I know we won't agree, that's fine. But in a rules forum where rules are irrelevant to the model in question (clear flying stand) and other, official, rulings relate specifically to almost identical situations to the OP then you have to work with what you've got and use a little common sense!

[RebelGrot]

I do agree and that's exactly what is written in the rules and in the FaQ :
_ when you measure, you use the general rule about skimmers
_ when you need to know where are models, where to embark and disembark then you use what is said in the FaQ and you then you use the base

The only grey areas I can see is about :
_ assaulting the valkyrie : do assault troops need to assault the base or just need to assault the footprint on the ground ?
_ deep striking squadrons ... there is nothing about such rules interactions ...

Here, we assault the base. Disadvantage is it's a little further to charge, advantage is that it's much smaller to surround for purposes of destroying troops. It also clears up any issues you might end up with height differences - 'these guys cant assault because the tail is higher than the wings. I think this is more open to interpretation than the OP though and more of a grey area as you said.

As for the deepstriking......