Flyers off Table

[Morticon]

Hey guys.

 

Not sure about this one.

A few people using vendettas in our gaming group will put the base of the flyer say in the corner of the table for argument sake, with the wings and fins entirely off table.

 

What you think? Legal or not?

 

To me I think its odd that lascannons/etc are coming from off table.

 

However, from the rules: "A model occupies the area of its base".

 

So...im unsure of how to fight this.

[Commander Sasha]

My son uses Valk/Vens, and I say it's all about the base. If infantry arms, flags, guns, hammers etc are ignored beyond the base, so are wings.

[Grey Mage]

Its a vehicle, a skimmer to be exact- so the base doesnt matter at all, while the vehicle itself is used for all purposes *hence the initial disembarking issue*.

 

Thus, if the wings are off the table, so is the model. Etc.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

BBB pg 71 Measuring distances

"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, 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."

 

So, in fact, the vehicle must be completely on the table, with nothing hanging off the edge.

 

+++

 

How about the Valk door height?

Is it >2" above the ground? That means none of them can deploy unless using a special rule to get dropped. :P

If it is just within 2", then only one model can deploy ^_^

[SeattleDV8]

IG FAQ

"Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for

gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is

impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,

or for troops to disembark/embark normally.

A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the

Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000

rulebook with the following exception: For the

purposes of contesting objectives and

embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or

Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.

For example, models wishing to embark within a

Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their

movement, all models within the unit are within

2" of the Valkyrie’s base."

[Frosty the Pyro]

you can probly argue for the fins to actualy go over, as they are most assuredly superflourous, and not techinicly a part of the hull. It is the hull that matters, for example with a landraider, the guns may be over the edge of the board, as may antanea or ramps. The wings are a bit trickier, though I would rule them as part of the hull, seeing as they are an increadably vital part of the structure for a flying vehicle.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

IG FAQ

 

Excellent :tu: . Though I wouldn't be quite so cruel to our IG cousins, it is always nice to know that it is legit and not just a 'yeah go on' thing.

[Morticon]

Playng devils advocate here, because i know other people will pull this on me...

 

Is the hull not exclusive of the wings/fins?

[Grey Mage]

Back it up with some evidence. Wings are part of the hull because their part of the structure- I can pull up the diagrams of planes for you if need be.

[Spacefrisian]

We simply play it as the entire vehicle must be on the table no wings sticking over the edge. So they need 8"at least to fly on the board.

[Morticon]

Back it up with some evidence. Wings are part of the hull because their part of the structure- I can pull up the diagrams of planes for you if need be.

 

 

You sure GM ?

 

Im just not sure how to argue against an opponent that claims the wings arent part of the hull.

[dswanick]

Back it up with some evidence. Wings are part of the hull because their part of the structure- I can pull up the diagrams of planes for you if need be.

You sure GM ?

Im just not sure how to argue against an opponent that claims the wings arent part of the hull.

This is one of those arguments that you will never win. Defining any part of a model as "hull" or "not-hull" (except for a few pieces listed in the BRB as decorative) is always going to have to be an "agree beforehand or dice off" unless GW suddenly takes it into their heads to clearly define every piece of ever model they produce. Unfortunately, all the real-world evidence in the world doesn't hold much weight when arguing the structural nature of an imaginary piece of an imaginary vehicle represented by a plastic model kit which isn't even properly scaled or detailed.

[Isiah]

My best guess would be that in aircraft-type models: fuselage = hull. Anything else (including wings) are not fuselage or hull.

[Grey Mage]

Back it up with some evidence. Wings are part of the hull because their part of the structure- I can pull up the diagrams of planes for you if need be.

 

 

You sure GM ?

 

Im just not sure how to argue against an opponent that claims the wings arent part of the hull.

Theres a rather particular list of decorative elements- are wings on it?

 

No. Wich means the burden of proof is on your opponent to show that theyre in fact not part of the hull.

[Seahawk]

Wings are on the infantry list for ignorable aspects, however <_<.

 

If infantry arms, flags, guns, hammers etc are ignored beyond the base, so are wings

Arms are not ignored. Head, torso, arms, and legs are what needs to be visible to fire at an infantry target. Decorative bits that can be detached by dropping or unlatching (weapons, backpacks, poles, etc) them are ignorable.

[Ravinella]

I'm watching this with interest.

 

I'd have to say my definition would agree with Isiah.

 

If it was part of the hull they wouldn't be called wings, they'd just be called hull.

 

The hull stops at the wing root and the wing extends to the wingtip.

[Grey Mage]

Wings are on the infantry list for ignorable aspects, however :P.

 

If infantry arms, flags, guns, hammers etc are ignored beyond the base, so are wings

Arms are not ignored. Head, torso, arms, and legs are what needs to be visible to fire at an infantry target. Decorative bits that can be detached by dropping or unlatching (weapons, backpacks, poles, etc) them are ignorable.

However the Vehicle section has its own distinct list. The two dont overlap in any way, and the rules for measuring and LOS for the two different unit types is very different....

 

So no, the infantry list isnt particularly relevant :P.

[KhorneHunter57x]

Perhaps a bit more relevant than the Infantry list:

 

From Page 72 of the BRB, on Walkers:

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.

Although this does not include 'normal' vehicles (or Flyers, or Skimmers), it does establish the precedent that physically critical, yet technically non-hull, parts of the vehicle are counted as part of the hull.

[CuznP]

Well, according to Barron's Insurance Dictionary. "The hull value includes instruments, radios, autopilots, wings, engines, and other equipment attached to or carried on the plane as described in the policy."

 

So it seems insurance agents consider the wings as valued as a part of the hull and I would imagine that in the grim dark future there are scads of insurance agents!

 

So I would tend to think that the whole of the vehicle would have to make it onto the board!!

[Cedric]

If you blow a wing off an aircraft, it tends to crash and burn.

Wings are an integral part of any flying vehicle using aerodynamics

They should definitely be counted as hull.

 

Compare; if there is LOS to the tracks of a tank, could you shoot it?

[Hellios]

If you blow a wing off an aircraft, it tends to crash and burn.

Wings are an integral part of any flying vehicle using aerodynamics

They should definitely be counted as hull.

 

Compare; if there is LOS to the tracks of a tank, could you shoot it?

 

Meh that really depends on the aircraft... My Airships can stay up without wings! Man Now I want my guard Aircav to use Zepplins...