Valkyrie Squads and coherency

[AngelsofDeath]

Was looking over the Guard Codex and knew that you could take 3 Valks per choice as a squad, I started to think that if you did take three that must mean that you would have to keep all three of them together or maybe..... they could split up since they were transports.

So I looked up and seen that units of vehicles - squadrons (Page 64 40K RB) move and must maintain a 4inch unit coherency. But I was wondering if there was anything for units of Valkyries since they are transports as well? I could not find anything to support or allow them to be able to split up at any time.

[Velium]

4 inch coherency, valk base to valk base. no special rules just because its a transport.

of course, once the troops get out they can act separately in their squads, but the valks obey all the normal rules for vehicle squadrons.

[Iceman]

I'm pretty sure they don't get an exception. The 4" coherency rule is one of the disadvantages of squadrons. Valkyries can be used as transports but they are not dedicated transports.

[wkz]

Just to be the third person to repeat the point: they still have to maintain 4" coherency.

Its sorta like the rest of the rulebook actually: there's movement rules, shooting rules and assault rules. THEN there's additional rules on top of that, for example "when stuck in assault, you cannot move normally in the movement phase".

THEN there can be yet more additional rules on top of the rules just now, for example the rules to explain how Beasts differ from "standard" movement and assault rules.

THEN... you get the idea.


A Valkyrie Squadron basically follows all the following rules:

Basic Movement, Shooting, Assault rules.
Terrain Rules (or lack thereof)
Vehicle Rules (replaces parts of Movement/Shooting/Assault).
Vehicle Squadron rules.
Transport rules (adds to Movement/Shooting/Assault. Especially the part where the vehicle goes kaboom).
Skimmer rules.
Reserve rules. Includes Deepstrike Rules (allowed by skimmer)

... and I think I probably missed one or two more rules somewhere... But the whole idea is this: the part of the rules that say "A Valkyrie is a Transport" will not override the part of the rules that say "A Valkyrie is a Vehicle Squadron" in any way (unlike "Vehicle Movement" overwriting "Normal Movement") Thus, both rules still apply.

[AngelsofDeath]

Great input, Thanks. Kinda how I figured it was. Though keeping the Valks in 4 inches of each other might actually be hard.

[Shadoq]

Plus being immobilized---> Wrecked sucks the big one.

[thecactusman17]

4 inch coherency, valk base to valk base

Not quite. Valks need to be in coherency but not that close. A part of each vehicle hull should be within 4" though. Base to base would violate several laws of physics in many configurations otherwise!

[AngelsofDeath]

Plus being immobilized---> Wrecked sucks the big one.

Oh yea....not good just having to shoot one of these down cause it cant move. And I can also see why you would not see maybe 8 or 9 of these flying around the table top in a full mobile army....cause its not really mobile. They have to stay together and carry so much of your army into one place at a time.

[Shadoq]

Don't get me wrong. IG Air Cav can be fun...but it ain't an OMFGWTFHAZORZ win button.
OKC huh? Ever been down to Lawton? Miss the local gaming scene there....

[Velium]

Not quite. Valks need to be in coherency but not that close. A part of each vehicle hull should be within 4" though. Base to base would violate several laws of physics in many configurations otherwise!

you only use the hull on skimmer models that dont come with the large oval flying base. wave sperpents and the like (if you could take them in sqadrons) would use the hull. you use the base for things like valks, ravens and the caestus.

[Morgan Darkstar]

you only use the hull on skimmer models that dont come with the large oval flying base. wave sperpents and the like (if you could take them in sqadrons) would use the hull. you use the base for things like valks, ravens and the caestus.

Where does it say this???

Page 71 small rule book.

Skimmers/ MEASURING DISTANCES

As normal for vehicles distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull with the exception of the vehicles weapons, access points and fire points.

[Velium]

exactly where it says you use the base that comes with the model. otherwise you cant disembark from your valk if you arent measuring from the base.

the valk came out after the 5th ed book, at that time the only skimmers available in squadrons were vypers and speeders. valkyries coming with the large flying stand and oval base provided a base to measure from.

[Nabterayl]

exactly where it says you use the base that comes with the model. otherwise you cant disembark from your valk if you arent measuring from the base.
You disembark from the base because that's what the IG FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490293a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf) says. For coherency purposes, as the FAQ makes clear, you follow the rule quoted by Morgan Darkstar.

[RealGenius]

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.

So you only use the base for these cases:
1. Contesting objectives (FAQ)
2. Embarking/disembarking (FAQ)
3. Assault (Skimmer Rules)

Everything else is measured from the hull (not the wings) as laid out in the skimmer rules. (Except shooting as noted above).

[AngelsofDeath]

Well we actually tried this with three Valks at the local store lastnight.(Play testing in action!) Needless to say it wasnt pretty. If you use the hull they can never be lined up three abreast fully. The best we got it was more like a flying V and had to almost include the tail boom at times. These models are big and when you try to keep three together it really makes the board or section of the board you are in seem small. We had the 25% terrain rule going on the table and it almost hurt us as much as it helped us with having to measure and make sure all three could fite in and still be within 4in. Overall it was educational and fun, had a decent group of players who actually put some solid thought into trying to make this work.

Its cool that GW made them into Squads, but after seeing this I wonder if they really took alot of time to look into this, or did they see the tanks in Squads and figured it was cool to put everything into squads.....(Why Not...Its GUARD!!!!)

I actually thought about building a Veteran all Valk transport army, but after realising the squad rules and seeing how big just three were ( This army had 7-8 that I was thinking of) I decided against.

Any unput into your own experience with this would be great.

[Tynskel]

hmm. even if you used the bases, I do not believe you can line the valks up abreast. Their wingspan is large.

[RealGenius]

I actually can't remember a tournament where I've seen Valks/Vendettas in a squadron. I think two would be just hard enough to manage.

[thecactusman17]

So you only use the base for these cases:
1. Contesting objectives (FAQ)
2. Embarking/disembarking (FAQ)
3. Assault (Skimmer Rules)

Everything else is measured from the hull (not the wings) as laid out in the skimmer rules. (Except shooting as noted above).

The wings are a part of the hull. The wings are where weapons are mounted. If the weapons are mounted there, it must be a functional part of the model, and thus count as the hull.

It's like trying to suggest that the Leman Russ cannon turret isn't part of the model for line of sight purposes. That's preposterous.

[AngelsofDeath]

The wings are a part of the hull. The wings are where weapons are mounted. If the weapons are mounted there, it must be a functional part of the model, and thus count as the hull.

It's like trying to suggest that the Leman Russ cannon turret isn't part of the model for line of sight purposes. That's preposterous.

If the wings were considered part of the hull that might help a bit, but then a squadron would take up even that much more room. I could not imagine 9 of these on the board even so.

[Nabterayl]

I have to say that I agree the wings are part of the "hull." True, the word "hull" does not normally mean "wings" (not that aerial transports of any kind have "hulls" per se). But remember that according to page 60, a blast marker that doesn't at least partially touch the hull of a vehicle doesn't hit it at all. I'm not sure I can swallow a rules interpretation that makes a blast marker whose center hole lands on a Valkyrie's wing but doesn't touch the fuselage a complete miss.

Page 60 specifies that the legal target zone for a vehicle is its "hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)." I don't think we can take the words "hull or turret" too literally. After all, unarmored vehicles such as buggies don't have hulls, and of course neither do aircraft such as Valkyries. I read the target zone rule as trying to indicate that decorative or movable parts of a vehicle don't count as valid targets. If that's how we interpret page 60, the wings of a Valkyrie are part of its "hull" for rules purposes.

[thecactusman17]

If the wings were considered part of the hull that might help a bit, but then a squadron would take up even that much more room. I could not imagine 9 of these on the board even so.

Now you are starting to sound strange. Do you model valks without wings? Why? What would be the purpose? It's a freaking plane by design!

If you have modeled them otherwise, that is your model but it doesn't change that the wings are a critical part of the model, where players may draw line of sight from and to for purposes of targeting. Who wouldn't want to blow the wing off an aircraft to knock it out of the sky, after all?

In short, your argument is that on an airplane, the wing isn't a part of the basic, fundamental element of the structure of the vehicle. I refuse to accept that. I think that any logically thinking person would also refuse to accept that. Wings are, and have always been, a basic part of the hull of Valkyries, and Stormravens, and DE jets, and Eldar hover tanks, and whatever else have you. If they aren't modeled on yours, then i hope you have done something creative to replace them.

[AngelsofDeath]

Now you are starting to sound strange. Do you model valks without wings? Why? What would be the purpose? It's a freaking plane by design!

If you have modeled them otherwise, that is your model but it doesn't change that the wings are a critical part of the model, where players may draw line of sight from and to for purposes of targeting. Who wouldn't want to blow the wing off an aircraft to knock it out of the sky, after all?

In short, your argument is that on an airplane, the wing isn't a part of the basic, fundamental element of the structure of the vehicle. I refuse to accept that. I think that any logically thinking person would also refuse to accept that. Wings are, and have always been, a basic part of the hull of Valkyries, and Stormravens, and DE jets, and Eldar hover tanks, and whatever else have you. If they aren't modeled on yours, then i hope you have done something creative to replace them.

Sounds kinda like your lookin for an argument when there really isnt one. The basis of this is the point of the Valks being very big squadrons of transports trying to maintain unit coherency (4in). Also pointing out that either way from the wing tip to wing tip or tail boom to front cockpit these models are big and may have some difficulty fielding in large numbers on a 4ftx6ft standard battlefield.

No argument......Nothing mentioned about altered models or Valks without wings....Nothing mentioned about being strange.....No argument......

[thecactusman17]

Apologies, I thought you were still arguing that wings weren't part of the hull. Sorry if I offended.

[Tynskel]

I disagree that the wings are apart of the hull, because you open all sorts of cans of worms. The wings in most cases, are superficial and have no functionality in the game.

What's the side of the wing? How do you measure the front and rear of the wing, vs the fuselage?

The Fuselage is more consistent with Hull than the wings are. The Hull is the body or frame. The fuselage is the same thing, it is the body or frame.

[AngelsofDeath]

This is opening a whole can of worms....sorry I brought up the question of can the Valks split up since they are transports/squadrons in the first place.

I dont know if there is a FAQ about the wings and what they count as, but C'mon man if the wings do not count and they carry weapons then the tailboom for sure does not count as part of the hull either then.

My main point was the coherency and I guess where is it measured from. If you try to go from the oval base there is almost no possible way to keep a squad of three in coherency. If you go from any point on one model (wing, tailboom, nose-cone) to another model then it makes it alot easier.

But since we are here, how do people play the model? If I play a person I give them the 12/12/10 front/side/rear as per the armour value when shooting at it, even if its the wing or the tailboom that I can see, and give it the correct cover save for the % of the model in cover if that is the case. And as far as assualt it is to the oval base.

[Nabterayl]

What's the side of the wing? How do you measure the front and rear of the wing, vs the fuselage?
I don't think this is a wing-specific question. You determine armor facings for the vehicle, not for its individual parts. Yes, you have to decide where the corners of the vehicle are, but you always have to decide where the corners of the vehicle are. I don't think making the wings part of the "hull" makes that exercise any more or less difficult, personally.

EDIT: as for how I play Valks, I draw each diagonal from the corner of the tail boom to the opposite corner of the troop compartment, and treat both the wings and the tail boom as "hull or turret." For purposes of embarking, disembarking, and assault, I play by the FAQ.

[thecactusman17]

I disagree that the wings are apart of the hull, because you open all sorts of cans of worms. The wings in most cases, are superficial and have no functionality in the game.

What's the side of the wing? How do you measure the front and rear of the wing, vs the fuselage?

The Fuselage is more consistent with Hull than the wings are. The Hull is the body or frame. The fuselage is the same thing, it is the body or frame.

And without wings, that body or frame doesn't do jack. Nor does it have space for its underslung weapon mounts, including Lascannons and missiles.

[Nabterayl]

If you're going to treat "hull" as meaning "body or frame," I think you should be looking at the aircraft's airframe, not its fuselage. An aircraft's airframe is closer to its "body or frame" than is its fuselage, and the airframe includes the wings.

[Tynskel]

Sure you could do that, but the hull is the compartment for cargo and troops, the fuselage is the compartment for cargo and troops.

As for weapon mountings, many weapons are not on the hull, they are mounted on the exterior of the hull. Plus you do not target weapons as being the hull, you target the actual hull. Ex: lascannon sponson on a predator. If you are facing the front of the tank, and the only thing you can see is the lascannon, you cannot shoot the tank because you have no target of the hull.


Nab, you didn't list what facing is the wing? Even turrets have clear facing, this is just an extention vertically on a 2d surface. Wings come out of the side of the vehicle, and go way beyond the fuselage. So, do I get a 3+ or 2+ cover save if you can clearly see the wing, but you are in the aft viewpoint? Or does the wing become armor 10?

[RealGenius]

Just for reference's sake, here's what the INAT FAQ has to say on the Val-detta. I don't think they are wholly correct, but the clarifications listed below probably allow for the quickest and easiest game play.


IG.56A.01 – Q: What exactly is considered part of the „hull‟ on a Valkyrie/Vendetta model?

A: Any part of the model, besides its weapons, landing gear and nose-mounted sensors is considered part of the hull [clarification]. Ref: BA.38A.02, DE.46A.02

IG.56A.02 – Q: What part of a Valkyrie/Vendetta model needs to be in or on terrain in order for it to count as being in or on the terrain piece?

A: While the Valkyrie/Vendetta is on its base, only if the base is actually in or on the terrain would the model count as being in or on the terrain (unless both players agree otherwise) [clarification].
Ref: BA.38A.03, DE.46A.03

IG.56A.03 – Q: Can a Valkyrie/Vendetta model end its movement over friendly or enemy models and can other models end their move underneath it?

A: As long as a Valkyrie/Vendetta doesn‟t end its move with its base on top of any model or within 1” of any enemies, it is fine to have portions of the Valkyrie/Vendetta model end up over other models, provided they physically fit underneath the Valkyrie/Vendetta model [clarification]. Ref: BA.38A.04, DE.46A.04

IG.56A.05 – Q: Can a Valkryie/Vendetta end its movement with part of the model hanging off the table as long as its base is fully on the table?

A: No, a Valkryie/Vendetta must end its movement with the entire model over the table [clarification]. Note that this means it may have to move faster than „combat speed‟ when moving onto the table from Reserves.
Ref: BA.38A.05, DE.46A.05

[Tynskel]

I don't like the INAT FAQ, because it isn't Games Workshop.

I default to the standard definition, which is the hull, excluding extra fluffy bits. Essentially, the wings are fluffy bits, because the projection of the model to the ground in the 2d game (essentially what warhammer 40k is, a 2d game, not a 3d game) is the base. The fuselage is almost entirely within this base.

Seems simpler to me.

So the wings get in the way for trying to fly in line formation. Oh well. People complaining about not enough space on the board for their formation of flyers- whatever, those are the risks that you take for trying to fly in formation close to the ground.

[RealGenius]

I default to the standard definition, which is the hull, excluding extra fluffy bits. Essentially, the wings are fluffy bits.

It does seem a little contradictory, because in one instance (measuring to/from), the wings count. But in another (models under the wings), they don't.

What about the tail boom?


So the wings get in the way for trying to fly in line formation.

I think you mean abreast-- wing to wing. You'd think that transports would fly in line (nose to tail) to reduce fuel use.

[Tynskel]

Yeah, abreast is what I was saying.

Nose to tail works fine, as far as I can tell, and if the terrain isn't three stories tall, of which unless you are playing city fight, the range on your weapons shouldn't matter too much if you are flying in a line (not abreast).

[Morgan Darkstar]

Post removed due to stupidity :D

NOTE

make sure you have your facts correct before you go calling someone out!

[Tynskel]

what? I am not using the INAT FAQ.

Sometimes the INAT is consistent with my viewpoint---- but I NEVER cite the INAT as my source.

For example, in this case, the INAT FAQ is not consistent in its ruling. They use the wings as hull, but have to have 4 million other rules associated with the wings as how it does not count as part of the model.

My viewpoint is that the wings are not part of the hull. That's it. This is self consistent, and fits in with GWs FAQ. INAT over complicates things for no reason, and without reasoning. Another reason why I hate it.

[Nabterayl]

Nab, you didn't list what facing is the wing? Even turrets have clear facing,
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Turrets don't have their own facings. You draw an X over the vehicle, from corner to corner, and that determines which facing the firer is in. You then ask whether they can draw line of sight to any part of the hull or turret without crossing one of the lines of the X, and if not, whether they can draw line of sight to any part of the hull or turret at all.

For instance, if a Predator's turret is facing to the rear, and a model shoots at the Predator from within its rear arc but can only see the front turret glacis, the front turret glacis counts as AV10. Conversely, if the turret is facing to the rear, and a model shoots at the Predator from within its front arc but can only see the rear of the turret, the rear of the turret counts as AV13.


this is just an extention vertically on a 2d surface. Wings come out of the side of the vehicle, and go way beyond the fuselage. So, do I get a 3+ or 2+ cover save if you can clearly see the wing, but you are in the aft viewpoint? Or does the wing become armor 10?
Similarly, if wings are counted as hull with the vehicle X drawn from tail boom to troop compartment corner, each wing is in the "side" arc. Thus, if a model is in the Valkyrie's rear arc but can only see a wing, the shot will be resolved against AV12 (because the shooter is taking the shot against the facing they can see, page 62) but with a 3+ cover save (because the shot crosses one of the arc lines).

No different than if a model were in the rear arc of a Predator but could only see the front hull glacis (perhaps because of overhead cover). That shot would be resolved against AV13 with a 3+ cover save.

[Paul]

My $0.02:

The wings are part of the hull. Otherwise, an immobilized Valkyrie (removed from its base) cannot be assaulted from two sides because the wings are in the way, and my Leman Russ's battlecannon can blow a wing clean off but leave the plane unperturbed, because it "isn't the hull."

Bull****.

[Morgan Darkstar]

what? I am not using the INAT FAQ.

Sometimes the INAT is consistent with my viewpoint---- but I NEVER cite the INAT as my source.

For example, in this case, the INAT FAQ is not consistent in its ruling. They use the wings as hull, but have to have 4 million other rules associated with the wings as how it does not count as part of the model.

My viewpoint is that the wings are not part of the hull. That's it. This is self consistent, and fits in with GWs FAQ. INAT over complicates things for no reason, and without reasoning. Another reason why I hate it.

Well i must apologise "looks around to make sure no one else can hear" I was thinking about someone else's previous post when i posted earlier, it wasn't you. sorry. "walks away with head low and many eggs upon his face"

[Tynskel]

You miss understood what I meant about the turret. I whole heartedly agree that the turret angle independent of facing, all I was trying to point out is that the turret is just a projection in the vertical direction. Just as the Valkyrie's base is a projection in the vertical direction.

The Valkyrie counting the wings as hull causes problems-- this becomes major issues when you can see 75% of the vehicle, but some how it gets a 3+ cover save. That is completely conflicting rules, which disappear when you only use the fuselage. The cover save rule is supposed to be for glancing shots, where the projection view point is essentially narrower than the facing that you are supposed to be shooting.

As for assault, you don't have to remove the stand, then you would use the base, which is smaller than the wings (what?). 2) you don't have to have the wings on when it crashes, they do not need to be glued, and most cases, people remove the wings for storage. 3) you could always climb the wing, some it does not count as part of the hull.



Now, if you were measuring from the tail boom to the edge of the wing, your projection would make sense, but for some reason you are not doing that. You are measure from the tail to the troop compartment. The crisscross from corner to corner is supposed to be across the entire hull, not part of the hull, so if you are counting the wing, you need to include the wing in your crisscross. However, this still has many problems, because where do you measure from? If you measure from the tail boom, then you are going to have a crisscross that is not covering parts of the model, and if you start from the wing, you would be leaving out the back end.

However, if you use the fuselage, the corner to corner is a simple box.

[Nabterayl]

You miss understood what I meant about the turret. I whole heartedly agree that the turret angle independent of facing
Ah, I see. Quite so then.


The Valkyrie counting the wings as hull causes problems-- this becomes major issues when you can see 75% of the vehicle, but some how it gets a 3+ cover save.
I'm not sure I can replicate this problem in my head. What's the situation you're thinking of?


Now, if you were measuring from the tail boom to the edge of the wing, your projection would make sense, but for some reason you are not doing that. You are measure from the tail to the troop compartment. The crisscross from corner to corner is supposed to be across the entire hull, not part of the hull, so if you are counting the wing, you need to include the wing in your crisscross. However, this still has many problems, because where do you measure from? If you measure from the tail boom, then you are going to have a crisscross that is not covering parts of the model, and if you start from the wing, you would be leaving out the back end.
How you draw the X on a Valkyrie is up to opponents in any case. If you want to go from tail boom to opposite wing corner that's fine by me, or from tail boom to opposite nose corner, or from rear troop compartment corner to opposite troop compartment corner. All of those seem to me like valid ways to section the vehicle, and all of them work just fine including or excluding the wings. My opponent and I just need to be clear up front about which way we're using. Any X is going to clearly delineate which parts of the vehicle are in which facing.

[Paul]

As for assault, you don't have to remove the stand, then you would use the base, which is smaller than the wings (what?). 2) you don't have to have the wings on when it crashes, they do not need to be glued, and most cases, people remove the wings for storage. 3) you could always climb the wing, some it does not count as part of the hull.



Now, if you were measuring from the tail boom to the edge of the wing, your projection would make sense, but for some reason you are not doing that. You are measure from the tail to the troop compartment. The crisscross from corner to corner is supposed to be across the entire hull, not part of the hull, so if you are counting the wing, you need to include the wing in your crisscross. However, this still has many problems, because where do you measure from? If you measure from the tail boom, then you are going to have a crisscross that is not covering parts of the model, and if you start from the wing, you would be leaving out the back end.

However, if you use the fuselage, the corner to corner is a simple box.

Point 1:
1) People remove the skimmer from the stand often, just like the BRB says (although I grant it is not required.) 2) If you have to take off part of the model to make assaults work, perhaps you aren't doing it right? 3) I don't like people putting stuff on top of my models, in fact, they're not allowed to be on top of my models unless it's a wreck.

Point 2:
How about you go from the front corner of a wing to the opposite corner of the tail boom?

[Tynskel]

The 75% of the model comes from 1) attack is facing the front of the model 2) the fuselage is covered, but not the wings. Without the wings that's roughly 75% of the model in plain view, from the front. Yet, you are hitting the side. This isn't not a projection where the 'front' is obscured, if the wings are apart of the hull. However, if you do not count the wings, then the side armor would be a glancing projection if you are standing in the front arc and shoot the side armor, because the projection of the side onto the front facing is very narrow, hence 3+ cover save.


The wing to tail boom might work, but I am pretty sure your line leaves the model at some point. Of which, how do you deal with that?

If you refuse to take the wings off, I guess you are dealing with a situation where models cannot reach the side of the vehicle, which is not at all unreasonable. Besides, the wings do not take up the entire side fuselage.
Think about it this way, you could hack at the wing all you want then the plane is on the ground, you are not going to harm the pilot. You might make the fuel catch fire, but there's a reason it is in the wing, not in the fuselage, to prevent the pilots from getting killed if the plane catches fire on the ground.


The fuselage is still where the cargo goes and the passengers. The fuselage almost entirely fits on the base. The base is a vertical projection of the model to the ground. It just seems to make sense to me that with all the abstractions that occur in a game with models, where arms are considered miscellaneous, when we know that a killing blow can be an arm being shot off... Seems to me that the 'body'/'hull', would be the fuselage.

[Nabterayl]

The 75% of the model comes from 1) attack is facing the front of the model 2) the fuselage is covered, but not the wings. Without the wings that's roughly 75% of the model in plain view, from the front. Yet, you are hitting the side. This isn't not a projection where the 'front' is obscured, if the wings are apart of the hull.
Fair enough. If that bothered my opponent I'd be happy to spread the X to the front wing tips.


The wing to tail boom might work, but I am pretty sure your line leaves the model at some point. Of which, how do you deal with that?
I'm not sure what there is to deal with?

Getting back to the question of "hull" though, I've always considered the tracks or wheels of a vehicle to be part of its "hull" despite the fact that the word clearly excludes those. Including the lift thrusters of a Valkyrie in the target zone (however we divide that target zone) seems analogous to me.

And ... whose arms are considered miscellaneous?

[Tynskel]

The tracks on the vehicle obscure the hull below it. This is analogous to a sponson weapon. The weapon itself is not a target, but the hull behind the weapon is the target.


Arms are considered miscellaneous: you do not have LoS on an arm, you have LoS on the body of a model.

[Nabterayl]

Arms are considered miscellaneous: you do not have LoS on an arm, you have LoS on the body of a model.
You need line of sight to the "body" of a non-vehicle model, true but "body" is defined on page 16 as "head, torso, legs and arms." Arms are valid targets.

[Paul]

What's wrong with the line determining front/rear leaving the model?


And people hitting the wing could, you know, tear chunks out of it and throw them at people, or smash the rocket pods so they explode, or any number of other horrible things.

Again, going back to my main problem:

If a blast marker scatters onto the wing, is it a miss? And if so, I call bull****. A tank shell hitting the wing of a plane most certainly would damage it.

[Tynskel]

Opps, I messed up that, flags, and weapons don't count for targeting models.

As for the 'tear chunks and throw people', ect. Fluff is great n' all but we are talking about miniatures on a table. At some point there is an abstraction. Hence, the projection of the model onto a 2d surface, ie the Valkyrie base.

The model is much larger than the base, but the fuselage is pretty much the same size, it seems reasonable to me to target just the fuselage and hull can be exchanged.

The Armor 11, cover saves, fast speed cover save, and the base are all abstractions of the real world. I don't know about you, but if you are interested in the 'tear chunks' out of your plane, you would know that when a plane crashes, it splinters, so it isn't unreasonable to take your wings off when the vehicle is immobilized.

[Nabterayl]

The model is much larger than the base, but the fuselage is pretty much the same size, it seems reasonable to me to target just the fuselage and hull can be exchanged.
Out of curiosity, how does that intuition work for skimmers such as the Falcon-hulled eldar skimmers, the Devilfish-hulled Tau skimmers, and the Raider-hulled dark eldar skimmers? Those all have hulls that are considerably larger than their base, unless you play very differently than I think you do.

[Tynskel]

Those skimmers are not flyers with a 8" tall stand. They also do not have any clear fluff sticking off of them (except the wave serpents has those wraith bone things, which don't count).

Their base is also not an area projection onto the ground, all it is is a stand. Everything is directly measured to the hull.

[DrLove42]

I'm a litlte late to this party but...

We play one of two ways. Everything counts or nothing counts.

In everything counts the wings, tail boom and everything else are valid targets. Also any of them touching terrain is a dangreous terrain, as per usual skimmers

Nothing counts is obviously the oppsoite, using the hull box in the middle. Being mostly aero engineers we argue what counts as the hull quite well

Personally I'm in favour of the 2nd. Otherwise you get situations where weapons can be mounted on the very end of wings, which stick out behind cover, able to shoot, but not be shot.

If you only count the hull where do you draw the lines for hits on the Stormraven? Or the Razorwing?

[Tynskel]

the fuselage is pretty darn big on a Stormraven!

[DrLove42]

Aye. And the Razorwing is pretty much all wing.

[Tynskel]

now that I look a picture of the vehicle, it is pretty clear where the fuselage stops and the wings begin.

[Tynskel]

Hey Everybody. This is directly from GW's web page on throne of skulls.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=19&aId=15000018a&multiPageMode=true&start=20


How are you handling flying vehicles like Valkyries, Vendettas and Storm Ravens?

The majority of movement related distances should be resolved using the oval base supplied with the model. Moving a Valkyrie 6" onto a table from reserves allows the base to be completely on the board while having the tail section extend past the table edge by a few inches. This means these vehicles can come on from reserves and fire all their weapons provided they did not move more than 6". 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.

For the purposes of contesting objectives and embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Storm Raven, also measure to and from the model's base.

However, when determining LOS to, shooting at, or assaulting a Valkyrie, Vendetta or Storm Raven, you should use the model itself, ignoring any vertical height the flying stand provides. This means melta guns can gain their added dice for armor penetration if within 6" horizontally of the model. The same holds true for template weapons. If in doubt, take the model from its flying stand and place it on the table to resolve such disputes.

[thecactusman17]

Interesting. That certainly hurts Razorwings. I would hold off on saying that this decisively ends the discussion though. GW tournaments are known to vary on rules questions. Anybody remember the 'Ard Boys a few years back where Witch and Daemonhunters could legally take allied Leman Russ Tank Squadrons, even though that was forbidden in the FAQ?

[thecactusman17]

Adding in a new piece here to post an update on an earlier part of this discussion: the new BRB FAQ clearly states that wings are considered to be a part of the hull, and even targeted with a tank shock if you can successfully contact them. So coherency in your flyer squads can be measured wingtip to wingtip.