Valkyries and Flying Bases

[Warp Angel]

P. 71 of the BRB

 

"Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull."

 

"Note that it is not permitted to remove the flying stand other than in the two cases above, as normally skimmers cannot land in battle conditions."

 

Those exceptions seem to be if the skimmer is immobilized or wrecked, or if it is immobilized and crashes after moving flat out.

 

Given the height of the Valkyrie flying bases, it seems pretty likely that there's no way to redeploy troops back onto a Valkyrie after they dismount.

 

My reading of the rules says:

 

1) If the model comes with a flying base, it has to use one.

2) If the doors to the model are more than 2" away from a model, then the model cannot re-embark.

 

Thoughts?

[Martellus]

Here's an extract from IA:2 which AFAIK is still valid.

 

The Valkyrie is classified as a Flyer and Orbital Lander with a VTOL Hover Mode special rule.

 

"....After its passengers disembark (or embark)...the Valkyrie can choose to engage its VTOL hover mode and remain on the table." It remains stationary but is treated as a Skimmer while in this mode except that all hits are treated as glancing and it cannot be attacked in close combat unless the attacker can fly or has jump packs.

 

"At the end of its own turn it can disengage VTOL Hover Mode..." and is now a Flyer.

 

We'll see if the upcoming codex radically alters this but by RAW Valkyries can embark / disembark models, hover as a Skimmer and revert to a Flyer as needed.

 

Martellus+++

[Warp Angel]

IA:2 is superceded by the new codex entry since the whole unit entry was updated in the new Codex.

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, IA are all "unofficial" official sources and their use is up to the people/tournament organizers involved. One could rightly argue that you have your choice of Valkyrie entries, and didn't have the ability to pick which traits from either one you wanted like you propose.

[Seahawk]

It doesn't matter what other books say because the Valkyrie is a Skimmer in the codex. You could be modeling Eldar grav-tanks on bases that high and say the same thing (and it would still be wrong). The thing is that valkyries are also flyers in other books (and huge bloody models), hence why the base is so big, to accomodate both versions.

 

If it really becomes a problem with your opponents, just cut down the flying stand so it's merely "hovering." Any good player won't care, as they would all perceive the valkyrie during its turn, swoops down, picks up troops, and climbs back to the height of that flying base. Any person saying that you can't disembark normally (ie, not by grav-chute, such as being blown up) because GW screwed you on the model exactness can really just hmmhmmmhmm, in my opinion.

[Martellus]

IA:2 is superceded by the new codex entry since the whole unit entry was updated in the new Codex.

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, IA are all "unofficial" official sources and their use is up to the people/tournament organizers involved. One could rightly argue that you have your choice of Valkyrie entries, and didn't have the ability to pick which traits from either one you wanted like you propose.

 

+++Don't base your argument on a rule that isn't released yet. The only rules that are in effect for the Valkyrie are those in the Imperial Armor books.

 

Once the new Imperial Guard codex is released on 2 May; IA rules are invalid. Then you can argue about base size to your hearts content or you can mount your Valkyrie on a telescoping stand to represent "flying" or "skimming" :(

 

Enjoy your RAW gaming.

 

Martellus+++

[jeffersonian000]

I haven't seen the new codex yet, but doesn't the latest version of the Valkyrie have a version of the Landing Gear rule?

 

SJ

[Seahawk]

Doesn't matter whether the model has landing gear or not (it does have it).

 

Only Tau vehicles have rules for landing gear. For the Valkyrie, it's only for aesthetics.

[jeffersonian000]

Be that as it may, having a version of the rule would allow you to use the rule regardless of how the model is modeled.

 

SJ

[Praeger]

I would consider this rule the same as moving in buildings - vertical distance does not count, only horizontal.

 

Are you within 2" of the entrance if looking down at the model? if so jump in!!

[Warp Angel]

I would consider this rule the same as moving in buildings - vertical distance does not count, only horizontal.

 

Are you within 2" of the entrance if looking down at the model? if so jump in!!

 

5th Ed non-cityfight (and even Cityfight is debatable) you do count vertical distance.

 

Reading the Bell of Lost Souls' Valkyrie base review, it would appear that you're going to have 4.5" of vertical height. When measuring from the top of a typical guardsman, that's far more than 2" above his head.

 

It would seem that there is no legal way, without an FAQ, that you can use RAW to embark or disembark from a Valkyrie short of using the Deep Strike method that is part of their rules for moving over 12".

 

Because this is stupid, until GW makes an official ruling, I don't see any reason why they can't deploy around the base of the model. That's how I'm planning on running it anyway.

[werewolf_nr]

I would consider this rule the same as moving in buildings - vertical distance does not count, only horizontal.

 

Are you within 2" of the entrance if looking down at the model? if so jump in!!

 

5th Ed non-cityfight (and even Cityfight is debatable) you do count vertical distance.

 

Reading the Bell of Lost Souls' Valkyrie base review, it would appear that you're going to have 4.5" of vertical height. When measuring from the top of a typical guardsman, that's far more than 2" above his head.

 

It would seem that there is no legal way, without an FAQ, that you can use RAW to embark or disembark from a Valkyrie short of using the Deep Strike method that is part of their rules for moving over 12".

 

Because this is stupid, until GW makes an official ruling, I don't see any reason why they can't deploy around the base of the model. That's how I'm planning on running it anyway.

 

That, I think, is a good ruling.

 

Also, most units do not come off their base (and the rulebook says the only time you are allowed to adjust the base is when it becomes immobilized) that it just makes more sense to keep them on their base and put the infantry around it.

[Grey Mage]

Wouldnt deployment just work as normal... IE within 2" of the Hull area designated the access point? After all a skimmer takes up the area its footprint takes up... you cant have enemy units within 1" of the hull, not within 1" of the hull that counts as 3"s up.

 

So deploy in/out just like it was in a rhino.... 2" as the raven flies.

[gil galed]

presumably they just have to be within 2" of the base

 

true LOS always confused me, if they can see the any fully but they are effectively shooting through another unit (be it under a hammerhead or under a valkyrie) do they gain the 4+ cover save?

[Warp Angel]

To be completely clear:

 

The oval part of the base is 1/8" high, with a 4 3/4" tall flying stand, with about 1/4" that gets inserted into the vehicle.

 

This makes the Valkyrie stand more than 4 1/2" off of the table top.

 

IG models are NOT more than 2 and 1/2" tall, even including their base. There is zero way that any guardsman that isn't holding something over their head will ever be within 2" of the doors of the Valkyrie mounted on an unmodified base.

 

This means that RAW, you cannot disembark using normal rules because you cannot deploy within 2" of the access points.

This means that RAW, you cannot embark using normal rules because you cannot get the whole squad within 2" of the access points.

 

And for you FW lovers out there, any time GW publishes a unit entry for the same model, it overrules it for normal 40k play. Just like it does when a new codex is published.

 

So I'm house ruling that you have to deploy from the base of the Valkyrie until GW clarifies things. Unless I'm playing against a jerk rules lawyer who is running with Valks/Vendettas, at which point I'm going to be a jerk. ;)

[Grey Mage]

I ask again.... why does it have to be 2" in 3d? Shooting is true LOS, but are we having to do the angle on rhino doors now? Does your base have to be within 2" of the bottom of the door on a waveserpent? Sorry, but the whole idea seems ludicrous. The examples in the book dont show anything about having to angle your ruler, nor do the rules...

[Gentlemanloser]

I would consider this rule the same as moving in buildings - vertical distance does not count, only horizontal.

 

I thought 5th changed that, and you have to be able to move high enough to get up a level, and you move vertically the same amount as you get to move horizontally.

 

Unless I've been playing it wrong! LoL!

 

Would help when some bad difficuult Terrain rolls make it unable to move up a level in a Ruin. :)

[Seahawk]

I thought 5th changed that, and you have to be able to move high enough to get up a level, and you move vertically the same amount as you get to move horizontally.

 

Unless I've been playing it wrong! LoL!

Yes you have. You're thinking of the previous edition for movement in ruins. In 5th, it's explained on pg 83 of the BRB. Moving between floors requires 3", so you need at least that to go up or down. To move horizontally, you need a higher number, and the remainder is how much you get to move. So if you roll a 5 for your DT, you can go up or down 3" and horizontally only 2".

 

For intact buildings that you'd embark in as a transport, they no longer move. They are now everywhere in the building.

 

;)

[Warp Angel]

I ask again.... why does it have to be 2" in 3d? Shooting is true LOS, but are we having to do the angle on rhino doors now? Does your base have to be within 2" of the bottom of the door on a waveserpent? Sorry, but the whole idea seems ludicrous. The examples in the book dont show anything about having to angle your ruler, nor do the rules...

 

It has to be because GW has said, "Use the Rules as Written". You can use whatever part of the rhino door is most convenient for measurement, which is coincidentally slightly better than 2" out from the top of the rear door to the head of a space marine than it is from the bottom of the rear door.

 

And yes, again, on the Wave Serpent. Watch how tightly the Tau and Eldar pack their guys to keep them near the door.

 

The pictures in the book use SM vehicles with a top-down view, and do indeed seem to measure from the highest part of the rhino's angled rear door.

[Ming]

Personally, the Valkyrie seems to be the combat insertion vehicle. You drop out of it. In fact, you drop out of it stationary, or as it moves, the benefit being scattered drop or not.

 

I'd argue that unless you were playing a scenario that called for it, you cannot embark back in it.

 

In most games, just the issue of moving the flyer to a boarding location, embarking a unit, moving it to a new location and disembarking takes a minimum of two or three turns. During those turns you are getting shot at.

 

I believe the intent is, you deliver the troops, and then use it as a flying weapons platform til we, the ultramarines, shoot it down. Then we shoot your troops.

[Thantoes]

I believe the intent is, you deliver the troops, and then use it as a flying weapons platform til we, the ultramarines, shoot it down. Then we shoot your troops.

 

QFT :wub:

[Grey Mage]

I ask again.... why does it have to be 2" in 3d? Shooting is true LOS, but are we having to do the angle on rhino doors now? Does your base have to be within 2" of the bottom of the door on a waveserpent? Sorry, but the whole idea seems ludicrous. The examples in the book dont show anything about having to angle your ruler, nor do the rules...

 

It has to be because GW has said, "Use the Rules as Written". You can use whatever part of the rhino door is most convenient for measurement, which is coincidentally slightly better than 2" out from the top of the rear door to the head of a space marine than it is from the bottom of the rear door.

 

And yes, again, on the Wave Serpent. Watch how tightly the Tau and Eldar pack their guys to keep them near the door.

 

The pictures in the book use SM vehicles with a top-down view, and do indeed seem to measure from the highest part of the rhino's angled rear door.

Im one of those eldar players... I deploy closely so I can get a little cover from the transport... no ones ever tried to tell me I have to angle it.

 

It also is 2" from the side hatches... but Ill note there is no sphere. Its just flat circle of 2" radius. Remember that for infantry all distances are measured from the base.... so supposing you were right it wouldnt matter how tall the models were, theyd never be able to embark, not even on a standard falcon base- the stand is more than 2" high. This interpretation of the rules simply doesnt work.

 

Im saying that its from the footprint of the model. Afterall, thats how you measure to see if enemy models are within 1", you dont angle down from the landspeeder, you go outward. Same thing should be done with embarking/disembarking.

 

But here, if you need a quote to help figure it out, how about this one:

 

BRB pg 71, left hand column. "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points wich all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may more into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base, or both." Emphasis mine.

 

Now, if the normal was simply measuring from the 3d hull as you seem to propose, why would they say to measure most distances in that case, but not access points... wich are to be measured "as normal" instead?

[DevianID]

There are some major issues with the valk and the base, that are very closely related to embarking/disembarking.

 

If this helps with the 2" to the access point rule, imagine everything from the enemies perspective. Can the enemy come within 1" during the movement phase? No, of course not. Is this 1" measured from the hull, suspended 4.5 inches above, or from the footprint of the valk?

 

Also, when shooting at the valk you measure at an angle, so the minimum distance to the valk will be 4.5 inches... but as others have said this can not work when embarking/disembarking.

 

Another thing, and this can be HUGE. We already know that no models can occupy the same space as another model. Thus you can not have a space marine standing on top of a rhino. So you cant have a model underneath a valkyrie any more than you cant put a rhino on top of a land raider. Now, if you cant have 2 models in the same vertical space, you can never assault a valkyrie, and the access points, being underneath the models wings, can never be embarked or disembarked from.

 

My solution to all of this is to not count the wings as part of the vehicles hull (think like the drop pod petals dont count as hull) so models can legally embark/disembark from the model. Also, assault movement and disembark/embark movement are taken using the footprint, not from the actual hull--treat the valk's hull as on the table when measuring 1" away from the enemy, ect. With these solutions you can have models under the wings (both enemy and friendly) as the wings dont count as part of the vehicles hull--and this way you can legally disembark/embark, and the valk cant use its entire wingspan to stop enemy movement (imagine the effect on enemy movement that 3 wingtip to wingtip valkyries could block off).

[Olesh]

But here, if you need a quote to help figure it out, how about this one:

 

BRB pg 71, left hand column. "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points wich all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may more into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base, or both." Emphasis mine.

 

Now, if the normal was simply measuring from the 3d hull as you seem to propose, why would they say to measure most distances in that case, but not access points... wich are to be measured "as normal" instead?

 

There seems to be some misinterpretation here.

 

That page specifically says that when measuring distances, you measure from the hull ("to and from the skimmer's hull"), and not the base. You measure the weapons, access points, and fire points "as normal".

 

Now, what is "as normal" for a vehicle? Indeed, when calculating distances for weapons, you measure from the actual weapon on the vehicle. When calculating distances from models shooting out a fire point, you measure from the actual fire point on the vehicle, and when you measure distances for embarkation/disembarking, you - see where I'm going here? - measure from the actual access point(s) on the vehicle.

[Bjorn the Fell-Handed]

The only reason that Valkyrie has a 4.5" flying base with a stand the size and thicknessit is is to stop the damn thing falling over.

 

And for whether they can redeploy; have any of you guys heard of an arcane piece of technology, known only to the greatest adepts of the mechanicus...

 

It is called............... a ladder.....

[Grey Mage]

But here, if you need a quote to help figure it out, how about this one:

 

BRB pg 71, left hand column. "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, are measured to and from the skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points wich all work as normal. The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may more into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base, or both." Emphasis mine.

 

Now, if the normal was simply measuring from the 3d hull as you seem to propose, why would they say to measure most distances in that case, but not access points... wich are to be measured "as normal" instead?

 

There seems to be some misinterpretation here.

 

That page specifically says that when measuring distances, you measure from the hull ("to and from the skimmer's hull"), and not the base. You measure the weapons, access points, and fire points "as normal".

 

Now, what is "as normal" for a vehicle? Indeed, when calculating distances for weapons, you measure from the actual weapon on the vehicle. When calculating distances from models shooting out a fire point, you measure from the actual fire point on the vehicle, and when you measure distances for embarkation/disembarking, you - see where I'm going here? - measure from the actual access point(s) on the vehicle.

So your telling me you angle up/down on your weapons when firing from the position of the weapon?

If so, I think your being rather odd.