Rules Question Re: Valkyries/Vendettas

[GiantKiller]

Hiya!

Just thought it'd be a good idea to get a rules clarification before the next tournament, since I know we've got a few guard players here.

How will we resolve the Valkyrie/Vendetta "issues" with the flying base? I've seen arguments on various forums that units cannot embark and disembark normally from valkyries because the models cannot be placed within 2" of an access point on the hull of the model itself, because the model is hovering about 5" up.

Similarly, it has been argued that a valkyrie and/or the unit riding inside cannot contest/control an objective because its hull cannot be within 2" of the objective due to the flying base.

Personally, I think those arguments do not hold water, thanks largely to page 3 of the BRB:
"A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so
when measuring distances between two models, use
the closest point of their bases as your reference points."

Also from page 3:
"For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead"

This isn't one of those exceptions, since this model *does* have a base. So, despite being a vehicle, it's treated just like any other model with a base.

So, essentially, the base *is* the valkyrie, for all purposes other than LoS. Again from the BRB, Page 58:
"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' [sic] mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models"

And when shooting *at* the valkyrie, BRB page 60:
"When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)."

Per codex IG p. 56 "Valkyries have one access point on each side of the hull and one at the rear"

So, putting that all together, I would interpret that as models within 2" of the side or rear of the valkyrie *base* should be allowed to embark/disembark, and any distances (such as to an objective marker) should also be measured from the base.

The model itself is really only used for line of sight purposes. All ranges and distances are measured from the appropriate point on the base.

While it is of course up to the discretion of the tournament organizer, I would suggest we use this interpretation for our tournaments since it resolves a whole slew of (perceived?) ambiguities with this unit.

Thoughts?

-John B.

[Andrew]

Well actually, everything is measured to/from a vehicle's hull or weapons. In the case of skimmers, the base is only used for the assault phase, otherwise being completely ignored for anything.

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit...this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." (pg 66)

That would say that when capturing points or embarking/disembarking, for instance, you'd measure from the hull. Clear cut there. However, think about this:

"As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull." (pg 71)

Now, this comes to a different sort of conclusion; when shooting at a Valkyrie/Vendetta, you'd have to be able to see the main hull (cockpit, troop bay) and if you saw just the wings or tail, you couldn't shoot it or have LOS to it.

I personally play it as follows:
The rules show that you must embark/disembark within 2" of the doors horizontally. There is no mention of any vertical limit, only the horizontal; thus you'd deploy anywhere within 2" of the valkyrie's doors on the horizontal plan. This follows the rules.

The rules show that you must be within 3" of an objective to capture it; in the case of an embarked unit, this range is measured from the hull. For precedent, the rules for ruins and coherency, a game physic identical to objective captures, include vertical measurements. Thus, a unit in a valkyrie cannot capture objectives unless they are on floors near enough to the valkyrie's hull (not wings). This follows the rules as best it can.

Shooting at valkyries would necessitate having LOS to the cockpit and troop bay, as these are the only "hull" of the aircraft, not just the wings and tail. Sadly, this follows the rules.

As a TO, this is how I would likely rule it.


Leave it to GW to make a model that doesn't follow many of their rules or doesn't fit into them. You could always shorten the stand so that any passengers or ranges are not debatable.

[siriq]

one could say that it would have to land to allow embark/disembarking of the troop carrier. i dont remeber how the fits into the rules as far as landing a skimmer goes, but just using logic that would makes sense, but if there are no rules for landing then, i agree with andrew.

[Andrew]

"Note that it is not permitted to remove the flying stand other than in the two cases above (immobilized and wrecked), as normally skimmers cannot land in battle conditions." (pg 71)

That'd kind of do it there =P.

[Jimothy]

i just skimmed over everything so i dont know if this was brought up but during the movement phase nothing that flies is considered to be the exact height that is shown. so the valk would just get lower and not land. a good example of this is when a crisis suit that is standing on its base flies up three levels of a building that is 6" away from it but it still only counts as moving 6" since its a jet packer. it never leaves its base but it is still flying.... so a valk would never leave its base but during that disembark portion of the moving phase would just get lower.

[Jimothy]

sorry if this is sort of off topic but are you sure that "hull" as used by GW would include the wings? my thoughts here is that typically legs of a defiler are considers for ranging and that would not be part of its hull(unless walkers are explained differently) or, a personal example would be the engines of a devilfish.... that would not be part of the hull but when i asked (im pretty sure you andrew) you said it would count as part of the hull. I dont want to have a large debate or anything but i was under the impression that "hull" as used by GW was everything other than the weapons.


to quote the book on page 60 "when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) the examples giving clears indicate that they mean you cant range on things that would not damage the vehicle (ok things that cant damage it and gun barrels) where as a wing is an integral part of the valkerie. even though depending on your definition it is not part of the hull. i should note though that flying vehicles* in the real world (where we can draw on for definitions) dont have hull's unless they also land on water. Strictly speaking that is.

the exception to this (it was pointed out to me) is a dirigible.

[Andrew]

movement phase nothing that flies is considered to be the exact height that is shown.

Perhaps this is from Apocalypse, or WFB? In 40k 5th edition, everything is exactly where the model shows it to be, without exception.

a good example of this is when a crisis suit that is standing on its base flies up three levels of a building that is 6" away from it but it still only counts as moving 6" since its a jet packer.

Impossible. With each floor being 3", a suit could only go up or down 2 floors, and only straight up or down without horizontal movement. Lastly...I'm not quite sure what you're saying anyways. Nothing ever changes its height from its base, though it will if it stands on terrain of different heights.

However, a thought I just had was that you can move the valkyrie next to a building with multiple floors and also disembark onto an upper floor, within 2" of the door (say it's a small unit). Nothing in the rules says no that I can find.

For the hull...I dunno. It's really meant for ground pounders, not the various skimmers that are used (and aren't clarified any further, of course >_>). I'd probably switch over to having the wings and tails be part of the "hull" for simplicity. See, with marine landspeeders though, if you just see the stubby little wings or spoiler, I know those don't count for shooting at it, as they are not the hull. At least that's how it's always been played. That could be wrong too... The problem is that many skimmers have so many parts held away from the body but could be considered important...and some not.

As for the defiler, it's defined in the walker rules: "If a walker does not have a base (like the Chaos Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including its legs and other limbs) as normal for vehicles. In this case, the hull would only be the little engine part and the upper body; the legs had to be specially written in, as, just like the valkyrie, there are no other models like it in the game.

[GiantKiller]

Well actually, everything is measured to/from a vehicle's hull or weapons. In the case of skimmers, the base is only used for the assault phase, otherwise being completely ignored for anything.

I agree that this is the case for the vast majority of vehicles. The valkyrie, however, must be treated differently because of its unique base and the unique situations it creates.

Page 56 sets out the rule for typical vehicles and distances.
"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull..." BRB P. 56

This rule doesn't apply to the valkyrie because the valkyrie *does* have a base. A mammoth base with an approximately 5" pedestal. So it necessarily follows the rules for based models on page 3.
"A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead." BRB P.3

But all skimmers have bases, don't they? Page 71 explains, as you quoted:
"Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull... [t]he skimmer's base is effectively ignored..." BRB P. 71

At first glance, this rule would seem to end the discussion, but look closer.
"skimmers have transparent 'flying bases'..." BRB P. 71

The Valkyrie's base is NOT a typical GW 'flying base,' and it is not transparent. Keep in mind we're talking about the base, not the pedestal.

Here's a picture from 'baldandscreaming.com': img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/mcjesus/base.jpg

The designers clearly did not have the Valkyrie's base in mind when writing the rules for skimmers. And that's why this conflict exists. Models can only disembark within 2" of an access point, and a valkyrie's access points are approximately 5" off of the tabletop.

The rules show that you must embark/disembark within 2" of the doors horizontally. There is no mention of any vertical limit, only the horizontal; thus you'd deploy anywhere within 2" of the valkyrie's doors on the horizontal plan. This follows the rules.

It is very dangerous to add words/rules where there are none, especially when trying to avoid creating the type of "house rules" style rulings that led to widespread criticism of the Adepticon FAQ.

The rule for disembarking is on P. 67:
"When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points, and within unit coherency" BRB P. 67

The rule doesn't mention horizontally or vertically. We can't assume they meant to make any distinction whatsoever between horizontal and vertical distance. It is also dangerous to assume that all measurement takes place on the horizontal plane when there are clear rules for measuring diagonal and/or vertical distance in the "ruins" section (as you acknowledge later):
"Measure the distance from base to base, holding your tape measure at an angle as necessary" BRB P. 82 Also "models in the unit maintain unit coherency as long as any part of the body of a model on a lower level is within 2" of the base of a model that is higher up." BRB P. 82

The only safe conclusion, reading the rules as a whole, is that 2" means 2", whether you're measuring horizontally, vertically, diagonally, or otherwise. However, limiting embarking/disembarking from a valkyrie to within 2" of the access points *on the hull* would effectively prevent embarking and disembarking from the access points of a valkyrie.

Further, two of your own points seem to be in conflict with one another. You argue that one must measure vertically as well as horizontally for capturing objectives from inside a vehicle, but not for embarking or disembarking.

I'm also not convinced that Page 66 governs capturing objectives. Page 66's rules regarding embarked units specifically uses the word "range" not "distance.":
"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting, this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." BRB P.66

Measuring range is different from measuring distance. If the drafters meant distance, they could've just as easily said distance. So how do we measure distance when the model in question has a base? Page 3 and Page 82 tell us to use the models' bases.

What do the rules for capturing objectives tell us?
"At the end of the game you control an objective if there is at least one of your scoring units, and no enemy unit... within 3" of it." BRB P. 91

There's no mention of horizontal or vertical. So again we must conclude they mean 3" in any direction. But if we do not measure base-to-base, from the base of the objective to the base of the vehicle or model (or hull if the vehicle does not have a base or has a clear flying base) something pretty screwy can happen. The rules for placing objectives simply state that an objective can be chosen "by placing a counter on it, choosing a detail of a terrain feature, or any other method that is equally clear" BRB P.91 So what's to stop a valkyrie player from choosing the top of a 7-8" tree as an objective? That's a detail of a terrain feature. It's not impassible terrain. It's not within 24" of another objective. And now only a unit embarked in a valkyrie could ever claim that objective. But if you're measuring from the base of the objective (in this case the bottom of the tree) to the base of the claiming unit or vehicle then suddenly it's fair game again.

Now, I think it's fair to say that a few of the goals to keep in mind when interpreting rules or resolving any rules dispute would be (in no particular order):
1. Find a simple solution that doesn't create more conflicts than it resolves
2. Enforce the intent behind the rules, not just the letter of the rules.
3. Avoid "absurd" or "unfair" results.
4. Interpret the rules in such a way that none of the language becomes redundant or superfluous.
(it just so happens these are a few of the general principles the U.S. Supreme Court uses when interpreting law... if they're good enough for them, they're good enough for me.)

It is my position that enforcing objective claiming and embarking/disembarking from the hull of the valkyrie can lead to absurd results, creates superfluous language in the rules, and clearly violates GW's intent, given the facts that the valkyrie has access points and can potentially carry scoring units. The Valkyrie's unique base makes it an exception to the typical vehicle and skimmer measurement rules, and therefore it must default to the rules for models with bases. Measuring from the base for all distances, and using the model for LoS only, is a simple rule, with a firm basis in the text of the rulebook, that creates no additional conflicts where there need be none.

Accordingly, I renew my suggestion that we interpret the rules that way.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I'd much rather have this lengthy discussion here than at a tournament or league game.

-John B.

[GiantKiller]

But wait, there's more!

are you sure that "hull" as used by GW would include the wings?

I'm sure "hull" would not include the wings or tail.

Since GW doesn't define hull, we're essentially bound by its ordinary (a.k.a. dictionary) definition.

From American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition:
"Hull n. 1.
a. The dry outer covering of a fruit, seed, or nut; a husk.

b. The enlarged calyx of a fruit, such as a strawberry, that is usually green and easily detached.

c. Nautical The frame or body of a ship, exclusive of masts, engines, or superstructure.

d. The main body of various other large vehicles, such as a tank, airship, or flying boat."


So... the hull is the "main body" of a large vehicle. Wings and tail are certainly very important to an aircraft, but they aren't part of the main body. I think Andrew had it exactly correct when he defined the valkyrie's hull as the cockpit and crew compartment.

For further assistance, the line of sight rules on p. 16 say:
"Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In such cases, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having ... majestic wings..." BRB p. 16

Seems pretty clear that GW intends wings and a tail to be decorative, not game-functional.

Wow I've got too much time on my hands tonight.

-John B.

[Andrew]

What do the rules for capturing objectives tell us?

We have to go exactly by the book: "Unit of Troops embarked in a transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull." (pg 90)

In this case, our hands are tied, thus leaving the highly suspended valkyrie hosed, which makes sense too. It's akin to a helicopter, so one hovering over an objective but doesn't have boots on the ground 40ft below won't have it well in hand. Some marines chilling in a Bradley on an objective on the other hand are well established. I tried finding a precedent to use 3d measuring with that, but then I found a line that made such a thing not matter, heh.

For the horizontal, sure they used a poor example (ground vehicle) for the picture, but that's how I extrapolated a sheer 2" deployment, rather than 2" in 3d. Such was the only precedent to go on.

As for choosing high spots, well, shoot down the valk and nobody gets it, or simply get more and things are still fair game. Again, you could always shorten the height of the base to resolve all conflicts.

Enforce the intent behind the rules, not just the letter of the rules
...
At first glance, this rule would seem to end the discussion, but look closer.
"skimmers have transparent 'flying bases'..." BRB P. 71
The Valkyrie's base is NOT a typical GW 'flying base,' and it is not transparent. Keep in mind we're talking about the base, not the pedestal

Ahem for mister no conflict . A flying base would be any sort of base that models a unit as flying, in my opinion. Such would be the intent, eh?

[GiantKiller]

We have to go exactly by the book: "Unit of Troops embarked in a transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull." (pg 90)

I do not agree that our hands are tied by that provision. We do not have to choose to enforce that provision of "the book" over another provision of "the book" when such enforcement would contradict the drafters' intent.

I do not believe that it was the drafters' intent to prohibit units embarked in a vendetta from capturing objectives (which is the effect created by measuring from a vendetta's hull) primarily because it was given the ability to transport scoring units. The right to capture objectives is a *very* important right granted to units aboard transports. Knowing that these rules were in effect when creating the Valkyrie/Vendetta, if GW truly wanted to take away that right, if they didn't want units embarked in a Valkyrie to be able to capture an objective, all it would take would be one simple line. "Units embarked in Valkyries may not capture objectives."

I similarly do not believe that it was the drafters' intent to prohibit units from embarking or disembarking (which is the effect caused by measuring from a vendetta's hull) because the valkyrie was specifically granted access points. Breaking this down step-by-step...
1. One cannot enforce a 2" disembark restriction horizontally but allow for an infinite range of vertical disembarkation under the rules. It is clear from reading the rules as a whole that when GW says 2" they mean 2" in any direction, not just horizontally.
2. If one cannot embark/disembark more than 2" from the valkyrie's hull access points, models cannot embark and disembark from a valkyrie because it is approx. 5" in the air.
3. If models cannot embark/disembark from a valkyrie, you have reached an absurd result that clearly contradicts GW's intent, which is evidenced by giving the valkyrie access points in the first place.
4. If you cannot measure a distance from the Valkyrie's hull without creating an absurd result that contradicts GW's intent, you cannot measure from the valkyrie's hull.
5. If you cannot measure from the valkyrie's hull, you must measure from its base per BRB P.3

Page 3 tells us to measure distances from models' bases. That's the general rule: measure from the base. Vehicles are an exception to that rule, and use hulls instead. Page 3 explains why - because most vehicles don't have bases. The Valkyrie is an exception to that exception because it *does* have a base, and thus the valkyrie is *not* an exception to the general rule (measure from the base) and therefore distances involving the Valkyrie must be measured from its base.

It is an exception to the exception, so it obeys the rule.

A flying base would be any sort of base that models a unit as flying, in my opinion. Such would be the intent, eh?

Just because a base makes a model fly doesn't mean it's a flying base. I disagree that "such would be the intent" for two reasons.

First, shady european experiments in precognition aside, the valkyrie model did not exist at the time these rules were written. It is impossible to argue that GW intended to include (or exclude) that particular (and significantly different) base in their very specific description of flying bases that trigger use of the typical skimmer rules because this base simply didn't exist at the time.

Second, the description explicitly states "transparent flying base." We all know what these look like. The Valkyrie base is not it. (see picture linked above). Not only is it vastly different in shape and size, it is not transparent. And that's key. If GW didn't intend for transparency to be a requirement of a flying base that triggers the skimmer rules for measurement, why stick the word "transparent" in there? One of the tenets in that list I posted and you quoted is to not interpret the rules in such a way that there is redundant or superfluous language. If you are arguing that a flying base need not be transparent, then the word "transparent" is definitely superfluous language. And, knowing that "transparent" is a condition, as GW did when developing the Valkyrie, if they had wanted the Valkyrie's base to meet that condition, they would have made it... you guessed it... transparent.

Yes, if GW had intended for the Valkyrie to use the skimmer rules for measurement, they could have *very easily* given it the typical 'transparent flying base' just like an eldar gravtank or SM landspeeder. I'd submit that it actually would've been easier to give it the "transparent flying base" because they wouldn't have needed to sculpt a new base. The fact that they chose to give this model a different-sized opaque base indicates their *intent* to make it an exception.


To distill it down, my entire argument rests on this basic theory: The valkyrie is an exception to the exception, so it must obey the general rule (that being, measure from the base). To do otherwise creates problems and contradicts GW's intent.

I think it's a sticky issue, and I think it's worth discussing, which is why I brought it up. I don't think the issue can be resolved just by cutting down the base, however. P.3 indicates that players need opponents' permission to use modified bases:
"Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game." BRB P.3 (emphasis added).
"As mounting your models on different-sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this." BRB P.3

Not a problem in friendly games. But it could be difficult to secure opponents' permission in a tournament game where the size of the base makes the difference between your valkyrie being able to score an objective or not. Yet another potential conflict resolved by simply measuring from the base.

I do appreciate this discussion. It's actually very entertaining for me and I hope everyone reading/participating finds it similarly so.

-John B.

[Andrew]

I do appreciate this discussion. It's actually very entertaining for me and I hope everyone reading/participating finds it similarly so.

Me too, as it's fun to hear from other people.

Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game." BRB P.3 (emphasis added).

Since it is not a flying base, by your definition, and the flying "stem" is not "the base," you can technically glue the valkyrie on the flat base (glued onto their bases). This follows the rules and solves problems too...eh? heh.


Counterpoints:

1. One cannot enforce a 2" disembark restriction horizontally but allow for an infinite range of vertical disembarkation under the rules. It is clear from reading the rules as a whole that when GW says 2" they mean 2" in any direction, not just horizontally.

From reading the rules it can be inferred any direction, but it doesn't exactly say it. What we have as a reference is the picture, which only shows horizontal distance. Now with the rhino, the access point isn't flush with the table top, thus requiring a slight angle for measuring. This would make the total distance from the rhino slightly less than 2", no? However, the range in the picture is measured purely on the horizontal plane, as clearly the models are 2" from the vehicle, not 1.8something as it should be if it's from the access points in 3d.

2. If one cannot embark/disembark more than 2" from the valkyrie's hull access points, models cannot embark and disembark from a valkyrie because it is approx. 5" in the air.

See above and why it is measured horizontally and vertical distance is not necessary.

3. If models cannot embark/disembark from a valkyrie, you have reached an absurd result that clearly contradicts GW's intent, which is evidenced by giving the valkyrie access points in the first place.

You can in my example above (following the rules), and additionally you can disembark from the valkyrie per its special rules. No absurdity found yet.

4. If you cannot measure a distance from the Valkyrie's hull without creating an absurd result that contradicts GW's intent, you cannot measure from the valkyrie's hull.

As you cannot know their true intent (other than money grubbing of course), nor is an absurd result yet obtained, this isn't yet effective.

5. If you cannot measure from the valkyrie's hull, you must measure from its base per BRB P.3

You can. Hold the tape measure at an angle, like all examples have thus far said to do without problem.


As for measuring objectives, well here we go:

1. Is there an embarked Troops unit trying to capture an objective? Yes.
2. Is the transport a vehicle? Yes.
3. Since it is a vehicle, you measure to the hull for this instance.

It is an exception to the normal vehicle rules. It doesn't say "If the vehicle has a base, measure to that; otherwise measure to the vehicle's hull," simply "Measure to the vehicle's hull." It doesn't matter whether the transport has a base or not, only if it is a vehicle (which all are, except for gargantuan creatures and the like).

For the record, as per my fluffy example in the previous post, I believe that the designer's intent was for units in valkyries to NOT be able to capture objectives unless the objective is higher up.

[GiantKiller]

Since it is not a flying base, by your definition, and the flying "stem" is not "the base," you can technically glue the valkyrie on the flat base (glued onto their bases). This follows the rules and solves problems too...eh? heh.

If the pedestal is considered distinct from the base, so someone could mount their valkyrie that way and not need opponent's permission to use it, that definitely would solve the disembarking and objective capping problem.

I think this would more clearly violate GW's intent than anything else we've come up with in this thread, however. Even if an IG player were able to successfully argue to a judge or TO that they did not need the opponent's permission to use the base that way, I'm guessing it's not going to earn them many points for sportsmanship. The biggest problem is removing the pedestal takes away one of the valkyrie/vendetta's greatest weaknesses... true line of sight. It can be seen by just about everything and will hardly ever get a cover save unless it moves flat out.

Anyhow, pedestal or not, my interpretation of GW's intent leads me to the conclusion that they intended measurements for the valkyrie to be made from the base. It is the simplest way to resolve the issue since it does not approach the argument of whether or not GW intended for the game to include the vertical dimension outside of ruins. Also, it doesn't take away any "rights" of the vehicle or its passengers: the right to embark, the right to disembark, the right to contest/capture objectives.

Clearly, when interpreting a company's intent, opinions will vary. So, for the sake of argument, if we're assuming GW's intent is for measurement to be made from the hull...

From reading the rules it can be inferred any direction, but it doesn't exactly say it. What we have as a reference is the picture, which only shows horizontal distance. Now with the rhino, the access point isn't flush with the table top, thus requiring a slight angle for measuring. This would make the total distance from the rhino slightly less than 2", no? However, the range in the picture is measured purely on the horizontal plane, as clearly the models are 2" from the vehicle, not 1.8something as it should be if it's from the access points in 3d.

I don't believe that diagram resolves the issue. First, there's an obvious difference between including vertical measurement when it would amount to a tiny fraction of an inch being subtracted from the deployment range and including vertical measurement when it would completely prevent models from being deployed. Second, while that diagram seems to ignore the vertical dimension, other diagrams in the rulebook do not (ruins).

Also, as a shameless plug for my interpretation, every diagram in the rulebook that includes a model with a base shows measurement *from the base*.

Either way, we can't have it both ways. We can't argue that the vertical measurement rules from the ruins section apply to one aspect of measuring to/from the valkyrie but not another.

If we have to include vertical measurement when measuring from the hull to deploy passengers, we have to include vertical measurement when measuring from the hull to capture objectives.

If we're ignoring vertical measurement when measuring from the hull to deploy passengers, we have to ignore vertical measurement when measuring from the hull to capture objectives.

It's pretty clear that we disagree on GW's intent, which is bound to happen from time to time when they don't come right out and announce their intent and they write rules riddled with ambiguity and conflict. But I think it's fair to say that if we're going to make a ruling as to how to measure distances to the valkyrie and its contents, it needs to be consistent for all measurements of distance.

Range? Do we include vertical distance when deciding if a model can fire on the valkyrie? If so, a model with a meltagun would have to be almost directly underneath the model to be considered in melta range.

Capturing objectives? Do we include vertical distance? If we do, passengers can control objectives. If not, they can't.

Embarking/disembarking? Do we include vertical distance? If we do, passengers can't embark/disembark. If we don't, they can.

I believe they all have to be resolved the same way, because the same rulebook governs all three. An argument that we have to apply the "ruins" rules for vertical measurement to some aspects of measurement from a valkyrie but not others doesn't hold water. It simply doesn't make sense that GW intended to use such fundamentally different rules for measurement for various functions of the same vehicle. That cannot be GW's intent. Either 3d measurement applies in all cases or it doesn't. And whether it should or should not is another argument involving GW's intent. Did they intend for the game to include a concept of 3d measurement? Some diagrams suggest yes, some suggest no.

Personally, I believe 3d measurement should apply in all cases, and that is what leads me to the conclusion that GW intended measurement for the valkyrie to be made form the base.

Again, opinions may vary. But I think that whether I'm a player arguing my case to a TO/Judge or a Judge/TO explaining my ruling to a player, the most persuasive/credible argument is going to be one that applies a consistent interpretation of the rules, and doesn't create more issues than it resolves. Basically... one that keeps the game running smoothly.

I believe that the designer's intent was for units in valkyries to NOT be able to capture objectives unless the objective is higher up.

The problem is, as I've mentioned before, being able to capture objectives is an important "right" of units in transports. Taking that ability away could have a MAJOR impact on 2/3 of the standard missions. So, I think it's fair to say that taking away such a right, when it's not spelled out either way in the valkyrie's entry, would require pretty strong evidence of intent. And I'm not persuaded by the "like a helicopter" analogy because a wave serpent could also be considered "like a helicopter", and troops in a wave serpent can capture objectives. Theoretically, the model most "like a helicopter" in 40k is the deffkopta, which *can* contest objectives. So I don't think that analogy provides a reliable way to determine GW's intent because other models that are "like a helicopter" can contest objectives at ground level.

[GiantKiller]

And now for another one of a lawyer's favorite things... precedent!

(of course these types of rulings are complete hearsay and not binding on us in any way, but it's interesting to see how other tournaments are supposedly deciding this stuff)

At a Philadelphia 'Ard Boyz, overseen by a "pretty senior GW rep" it was apparently ruled by a that the Valkyrie/Vendetta used the model itself for line of sight but conducted all other measurements from the base and that the wings/tail could overlap other models (meaning they weren't treated as part of the hull).

See this thread from DakkaDakka, specifically the 3rd batrep: www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/247794.page


At the "Big Waaaagh" GT-circuit tournament it was apparently ruled by a "senior judge" that for measurement purposes players were to use the valkyrie/vendetta model itself, but treat it as if it was on the ground.

See this thread from the "Big Waaagh" forums (the relevant posts are part-way down the page):
thebigwaaagh.com/index.php?topic=36.30



-John B.

[Andrew]

Well that's perfect, I'd go with that. Goes with everything I've wanted and solves issues.

Though DakkaDakka as a forum full of rules ain't worth squat, having it rebounded from them to us is nice.

[GiantKiller]

Though DakkaDakka as a forum full of rules ain't worth squat

Sir, I do believe this is the first thing we've wholeheartedly agreed on all thread. ;D

-John B.

[NonSequitur]

Hey this is all cleared up in the new IG faq, see the bove post or this link www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470041a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf , the Valkyrie/Vendeta does load, unload, and contest from the base. You still have to shoot at the hull for line of sight and range etc...