Valkyrie wing/tail clarification

[The Imperial Guard]

Hi all,

What are your thoughts regarding the Valkyrie and its wings and tail being both targetable as well as rules regarding them overlapping enemy units?

The rulebook states targeting a vehicle to fire on requires measuring to the hull. Do you consider the wings and tail to be part of the hull, or considered decorative elements such as dozer blades (please consider that dozer blades are functional upgrades, and still considered decorative elements in the rules). Also, the FAQ did state that the flying base is the key item for embarking/disembarking and holding objectives, which further enforces the idea that the wings and tail are really decorative elements.

Second, once again, they clarified in the FAQ that the Valkyrie flying base is now the key object in regards to holding objectives, so I therefore think the wings and tail should not be considered when measuring how far a Valkyrie is from an enemy unit. Not only does the Valkyrie sit above them due to the requirement that we use the flying stand, but those wings and tail don't even count when it comes to objectives. It would be like saying the center piece of a land raider is the only piece that counts for objectives, but you still have to stay a few inches away from the entire Land Raider.

In recap, I guess the recent FAQ clarification putting pretty much all emphasis on the Flying Base, not the model itself makes me consider the wings and tail to be decorative elements, NOT actual pieces of the hull, and therefore are not legitimate shooting targets, and are not considered when measing the distance between the valkyrie and another unit.

[Rapture]

I would count the wings and tail. Hitting only the dozer blade on the front of a tank won't actually damage the vehicle itself, but shooting a wing off of a plane will send it to the ground.

[oni]

What do the Imperial Armour rules say? Granted it's not quite the same, but I'd be willing to use it.

[fade_74]

You measure to the hull.....the body of any vehicle. The wings and tail are not, by definition, the hull.

[phoenyxx]

The wings and tail of a flying vehicle are not decorative. They are an integral part of the vehicle and necessary for it to function.

Additionally, there are weapons on the wings. You are going to be measuring line of sight and distances for those weapons from those weapons. If you can shoot me from your wing, then I can shoot your wing.

Then you must also consider the Defiler. According to the rules for a defiler, all of its arms and legs are considered part of its hull for the purposes of getting shot and determining if its in assault range.

The wings and tail are definitely part of the hull. The only reason they have made an adjustment for the purposes of embarking and objectives is because the stand is too high. The vehicle would always be out of range.

[m0rm0k]

If wings don't count for measuring it would be impossible to keep a squadron within 4 inch coherency. The 2 wing spans make a bout a 7 inch distance from base to base. So they have to count as hull.

[The Imperial Guard]

The wings and tail are definitely part of the hull. The only reason they have made an adjustment for the purposes of embarking and objectives is because the stand is too high. The vehicle would always be out of range.

I don't know if I buy your explanation regarding the wings and tail. From a purely logical perspective, Warhammer is full of many flying vessels with various power sources that defy the traditional wing and tail aircraft, and the Valkyrie is a VTOL vehicle, hense the lack of wheeled landing gear. A further claim could be made that the wings are so thin when being looked at from a front/back/side perspective, that the hull would be the likely target of a gun, not the wings.

Also, the main rulebook clearly states on page 56 that ANY measurements to a vehicle are made to the hull, ignoring weapon barrels, dozer blades (both active vehicle upgrades).

To further back this, it even goes as far as to say that the only exception to this rule is when you are measuring from your OWN gun, at which point you would measure line of site and range from your gun barrel.

I'm not sure where in the CSM codex that they explicitaly call out the Defilers arms and legs as being related to distance, but you are also comparing an assault walker with a flying vehicle. Two different animals. If my Valkyrie stood on its wings and assaulted people with them, then I'd be more inclined to consider that comparison.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I always allow my opponent to target wings and tail.
It's kind of a give and take.
I talk to my opponent at the beginning of the game and say 'hey, here's the deal. we use the base for table-top level interactions and embarkation/assault, we use the whole model (wings AND tail) for targetting and everything works out fine!'
I have YET to have anyone disagree with me on that call.
As the FAQ has clarified that a bit, we can assume some of it is handled, but still not the 'what can I target/where's the model'

So, I will still follow this guideline.
You can shoot my wings,AS long as I can use the base(or hull) for defining whether I am on the table/within 12" for scouting.

(also, If I can shoot wing mounted weapons, the wings are OBVIOUSLY valid for targeting. )

whee, everybody wins! :)

[Rapture]

If wings don't count for measuring it would be impossible to keep a squadron within 4 inch coherency. The 2 wing spans make a bout a 7 inch distance from base to base. So the have to count as hull.

That settles it.

[crazyredpraetorian]

The hull is roughly the size of a Rhino or Chimera. It makes sense to use the "hull" as a targeting reference for gaming purposes. You don't measure from the wing tips for scoring purposes.

[The Imperial Guard]

I always allow my opponent to target wings and tail.
It's kind of a give and take.
I talk to my opponent at the beginning of the game and say 'hey, here's the deal. we use the base for table-top level interactions and embarkation/assault, we use the whole model (wings AND tail) for targetting and everything works out fine!'
I have YET to have anyone disagree with me on that call.
As the FAQ has clarified that a bit, we can assume some of it is handled, but still not the 'what can I target/where's the model'

So, I will still follow this guideline.
You can shoot my wings,AS long as I can use the base(or hull) for defining whether I am on the table/within 12" for scouting.

(also, If I can shoot wing mounted weapons, the wings are OBVIOUSLY valid for targeting. )



It shouldn't be give and take, it should be a defined set of rules.

1) The rulebook clearly states that you can NOT target a weapon when finding line of site. You target the hull or turret of a vehicle. This rules out using the wing weapons as justification to target the wings. To further back this, what would happen when the limited ammo weapons are gone? Do the wings no longer count as targetable?

2) IG FAQ states that for measuring purposes, the standard skimmer rules apply to the Valkyrie with the exception of embarking, disembarking and holding objectives. Standard skimmer rules state measurements are to the hull or base, depending on the scenario. Once again, they specify hull or base, and don't call out the wings or tail.

3) Page 60 of the main rulebook states that "When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see it's hull or turret", once again specifying the hull specifically.

4) The IG FAQ states that the Valkyrie base is used to define the range for holding objectives, which sets further presidence that the wings are considered decorative versus functional. Imagine having a rhino with 4 inch appendages on either side that serve no purpose other than to get you shot! Even in that case, they could be used for cover by your troops! Another analogy would be a Land Raider, where the middle 2 inches of the hull is the only part that counts for objectives, and yet the rest of the vehicle can be targeted for shooting.

5) Finally, every definition of hull I've found refers to the main superstructure/frame of the vehicle, so from a purely definition perspective, wings are not considered part of an aircraft hull.

[The Imperial Guard]

That settles it.

That settles nothing.
1) Measuring RANGE specifies HULL in the rulebook.
2) Unit coherency states: "between one MODEL and the NEXT". It does not specify the hull or base as the end-point of measure.
3) Even if coherency does require a hull measurement, the 4" Vehicle Squadron requirement can easy beachieved by staggering models, which from a real world perspective make sense. Staggering combat aircraft has been standard practice since WW2.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

It shouldn't be give and take, it should be a defined set of rules.
I think we may be taking the rule vs the game a bit too far. The game has to be a bit of both at times.


1) The rulebook clearly states that you can NOT target a weapon when finding line of site I disagree, see below.

You target the hull or turret of a vehicle. This rules out using the wing weapons as justification to target the wings. To further back this, what would happen when the limited ammo weapons are gone? Do the wings no longer count as targetable?

I was making an observation that weapons in every other vehicular example in the core rules are mounted on the hull or turret. I am not arguing that if you can see the weapon you should be able to engage, I am arguing that a portion of the hull capable of withstanding the rigors of weapon mounting are most likely to be integral to the vehicle, thus capable of being targeted. If you can see the nose of my Hellstrike, you can't shoot it...if you can see my wing mounting the hellstrike you can. I'm not trying to arguen a chain that would produce 'iif you blow off my scatter laser you cannot target my chimera cause the turrent isn't viable anymore'...



2) IG FAQ states that for measuring purposes, the standard skimmer rules apply to the Valkyrie with the exception of embarking, disembarking and holding objectives. Standard skimmer rules state measurements are to the hull or base, depending on the scenario. Once again, they specify hull or base, and don't call out the wings or tail.

and again, you are applying a strict and yet undefined assumption that the wings (or tail) do not count as such...we'll get there in a minute.


3) Page 60 of the main rulebook states that "When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see it's hull or turret", once again specifying the hull specifically.

see last..


4) The IG FAQ states that the Valkyrie base is used to define the range for holding objectives, which sets further presidence that the wings are considered decorative versus functional. Imagine having a rhino with 4 inch appendages on either side that serve no purpose other than to get you shot! Even in that case, they could be used for cover by your troops! Another analogy would be a Land Raider, where the middle 2 inches of the hull is the only part that counts for objectives, and yet the rest of the vehicle can be targeted for shooting.

no, it actually sets a precedent for all rules around it, such as embarkation and the inability to contest normally. Just because a relates to b and b relates to c does not mean a and c relate in the same fashion. Logic arguments aside it's a game, it doesn't even have to follow logical progression.

your other two examples are handled by the BRB as normal for vehicles. I think that's a little specious.


5) Finally, every definition of hull I've found refers to the main superstructure/frame of the vehicle, so from a purely definition perspective, wings are not considered part of an aircraft hull.

well, we cannot truly pull real world examples in here, as I would then point out that a wing is a valid target, is vital to an aircraft's function, and would degrade it's combat effectiveness if struck in such as way as to impede it's movement (stunned/immobilized), strip it of unused weapons/jam them (shaken/wpn destroyed) or actually physically destroy them (immobilized/destroyed).

The rulebook does not actually go to define what is or is not hull, and we all know real world examples really don't generally translate.

The only true RAW restriction(s) to targeting a vehicle (other than actually seeing the darned thing) that is given to us in the rulebook is BRB pg 60 "..see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicles gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)"
that's it. No mention of wings or flight surfaces...
In this case, IMHO, hull refers to any surface that could be viably seen, is not a modeling fun bit (ie;not punishing someone for the hobby) and critical/integral to the function of the vehicle.
If someone is trying to tell me their wings are not important to the function of their flyer/valkyrie, I would do my best to point out why this is questionable at best, and should be looked at from a sporting/sense perspective.

NOTE: I own 4 valks, a vulture, and a couple other flyers. I WIN tournaments with my army, and I have found two things that matter.
a) if he can see my wing in a tourney, and he can't see my hull, the terrain is weird OR I've modified my flight base
b)if I really have to WORRY bout blocking line of sight to a valk, I am already losing...or have made a horrible mistake.

at this point, it doesn't really matter one way or the other..go with the flow, it's a game.

[Jwolf]

Gentlemen,

I know that stridency and inflexibility are very fashionable on most forums; I fall into that trap myself on occasion. Please resist the urge to "prove" things with inflamatory phrasing and CAPITALS. I think there is more talk that might move one side or both on this issue, so please discuss further if you can do so with limited regurgitation(s).

Thanks!

[Xas]

Exitus, I think the main issue with "targeting" the wings are blast weapons. if you count the wings for targeting your vehicle is about 3x as big a target and therefore about twice as easy to hit.


for my games I've found a solution that most people agree with:
you can target the whole "footprint" including wings and tail but the whole rules for height-levels apply for the flyer. meaning: if you hit you do no damage to models on ground level and if you miss with a non-barrage weapon you do neither. additionally stuff that is targeted at ground level and scatters onto the flieght base does no damage to the flier.furthermore you have to check range to the model itself (excluding the landing pads) for range which is especially helpfull against meltaguns.

I know that this doesnt help for the RAW people or competitve play (unless you know the orga to include it into their faq ^^) but I think it is also important to discuss and improve house rules to clarify what GW did not make clear.

[Ferro]

Mr. IG,

Your main argument seems to hinge on the definition of 'hull.' Have you actually looked it up? Technically, an aircraft does not have a hull, it has a fuselage. So if you're going to be so super-strict with your rules interpretation, you must conclude that an aircraft is not targetable at all, for it has no hull or turret.

But that's obviously nonsense.

Tanks and similar land-vehicles have hulls; ships and large water-craft have hulls. The term refers to the 'main body of the tank' or the 'water-tight body' of the boat--the part that makes it float. You see where I'm going with this...

You draw LOS to the vehicle itself, whatever size or shape it may be. You may not target extra little bits that stick out. Wings are not extra little bits. They are part of the vehicle itself. Wings may not be considered in the same class as dozer blades and other "active vehicle upgrades," since the wing is not an upgrade option. A tank without a dozer blade is still a tank; a plane without wings is... useless?

The rules don't allow targeting of wings on infantry models. But that restriction does not convey to vehicles with wings.
Consider the Tau Manta. It's 80% wing, and huge. http://spaceship.brainiac.com/ForgeWorld/tau-manta.jpg

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Exitus, I think the main issue with "targeting" the wings are blast weapons. if you count the wings for targeting your vehicle is about 3x as big a target and therefore about twice as easy to hit.


for my games I've found a solution that most people agree with:
you can target the whole "footprint" including wings and tail but the whole rules for height-levels apply for the flyer. meaning: if you hit you do no damage to models on ground level and if you miss with a non-barrage weapon you do neither. additionally stuff that is targeted at ground level and scatters onto the flieght base does no damage to the flier.furthermore you have to check range to the model itself (excluding the landing pads) for range which is especially helpfull against meltaguns.

I know that this doesnt help for the RAW people or competitve play (unless you know the orga to include it into their faq ^^) but I think it is also important to discuss and improve house rules to clarify what GW did not make clear.

My comments were predicated on the thread finding issue with ANY targeting not involving a narrowly defined view of what 'hull' means.
I certainly think the whole issue needs discussion, but the biggest downfall to either side of the argument will come down to how we define 'hull' in game terms.
(which Ferro has beaten me to, so I will let his explanation speak eloquently for me) :)

I really haven't found anyone try to apply a hit to both a 'wing' and a unit that might be under it. The thought that it might happen has crossed my mind, but rarely does the poor PBIs coming out of it last long enough to matter (or the 'Chopper' has the sense to bug out first!)
Certainly, as a house rule handling it like elevations is a good solution, and I personally would do that when being targeted. :)

[The Imperial Guard]

Gentlemen,

I know that stridency and inflexibility are very fashionable on most forums; I fall into that trap myself on occasion. Please resist the urge to "prove" things with inflamatory phrasing and CAPITALS. I think there is more talk that might move one side or both on this issue, so please discuss further if you can do so with limited regurgitation(s).

Thanks!

Hey Jwolf,

I'm new to forums, so I apologize for my lack of forum etiquette! My intent on caps was to highlight key concepts of my view with no inflamatory intent in mind! I apologize for anyone who took it as that! I'm a debater at heart, and this particular topic has so much ambiguity involved and split opinions that I thought it would make for a fun debate.

Once again, sorry if someone took my use of caps as inflamatory, I did not intend them to be that way! For inflamatory, I use a red font and bold!

[RocketRollRebel]

wow this thing is becoming more annoying than defilers/soul grinders...:confused:

[The Imperial Guard]

Mr. IG,

Your main argument seems to hinge on the definition of 'hull.' Have you actually looked it up? Technically, an aircraft does not have a hull, it has a fuselage. So if you're going to be so super-strict with your rules interpretation, you must conclude that an aircraft is not targetable at all, for it has no hull or turret.

But that's obviously nonsense.

Tanks and similar land-vehicles have hulls; ships and large water-craft have hulls. The term refers to the 'main body of the tank' or the 'water-tight body' of the boat--the part that makes it float. You see where I'm going with this...

You draw LOS to the vehicle itself, whatever size or shape it may be. You may not target extra little bits that stick out. Wings are not extra little bits. They are part of the vehicle itself. Wings may not be considered in the same class as dozer blades and other "active vehicle upgrades," since the wing is not an upgrade option. A tank without a dozer blade is still a tank; a plane without wings is... useless?

The rules don't allow targeting of wings on infantry models. But that restriction does not convey to vehicles with wings.
Consider the Tau Manta. It's 80% wing, and huge. http://spaceship.brainiac.com/ForgeWorld/tau-manta.jpg


You bring up very logical points though your example of the Tau Manta is not the same, as it does have weapon turrets, enabling the areas to be targeted.

I knew starting this thread that there would be quite a bit of debate, and I hoped it would be friendly and hope it is considered friendly to everyone. From a logical and "fun" perspective, I do side with the folks who say the wings should be targeted, as it just makes sense.

As my original post(s) said, I have issues with the fact that the Valk costs a decent chunk of change for what it can do (and it does alot!), and the recent FAQ nerfed it in regards to the ability to hold objectives.
To me, stating that the base is used for embarking/disembarking made perfect sense. The guys are dropping down/landing/etc. However, when it also stated that the base is used for objective consideration, it made me question the validity of counting the wings from a gameplay perspective as a legitimate target versus fluff on the vehicle to make it look cool. With a Chimera, I could park the tip of my nose over the objective and call it mine, even though troops disembark from the back of the vehicle, several inches away from the objective. Assuming the wings of a Valk are targetable, I have the following gameplay problems:

1) It then has the majority of its effective, targetable size being unable to hold an objective.
2) Forcing the base to be on an objective removes a good amount of strategic placement of the vehicle such as hiding parts of it behind cover to be hull-down. For me, this is critical as the Valkyrie is already forced to sit above most area terrain, so when you can find some that will work, it's very nice!
3) Assuming wings are targetable, no other flying transport (or any transport for that matter) is forced to use only part of their targettable hull size when it comes to holding objectives. This, combined with the fact that the flying base for the Valkyrie is just about the same size as the troop compartment, and the fact that the FAQ uses it as a reference point for embark/disembark as well as objectives, makes me feel that for fairness purposes, the wings should not be targetable.
4) And finally, if the wings are targetable, any time a Valk is forced to come on the edge of a table without moving, it must always come on facing straight, otherwise a wing is considered off the table.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I will preface this by saying, I utterly hate the valkyrie and everything about it. It does not belong in 40k, it is way overpowered and way underpriced for what it can do, it is basically the only thing in the game I think this about, and it annoys me to no end just to even see one of the damned things on the table.

As a result of the rule-bending debacle of this model being concocted in order to sell models to those IG fans who are vehicle nuts, there are obviously a series of problems with this infernal thing, and many of them have ZERO basis in reality of the game's rules. So I deal with them with the only thing that remains: logic.

Regarding shooting the wings and tail: I can only say that clearly, the body of the vehicle aside, it would seem a little asinine to make such a huge model that can so rarely be obscured from view, only to make it untargetable. A dozer blade is a dozer blade; blowing it off the tank would have no effect on the tank's functionality whatsoever. What happens when you blow a wing off a plane?

Logical solution: Yes, you can hit the wings and tail. If nothing else, for the fact it would be stupid that 80% of your model might be visible behind that especially tall tree, but yet your opponent would be unable to target it. That seems like an easter egg to me, even if RaW suggests otherwise (of course as already mentioned, by RaW the valkyrie can't be shot at at all.../sigh).


I really haven't found anyone try to apply a hit to both a 'wing' and a unit that might be under it. The thought that it might happen has crossed my mind, but rarely does the poor PBIs coming out of it last long enough to matter (or the 'Chopper' has the sense to bug out first!) Certainly, as a house rule handling it like elevations is a good solution, and I personally would do that when being targeted. When this happens in games I play, I 4+ the hit on the ground. You never know what kind of debris might come raining out of the sky, I suppose. The height levels are a very good way to deal with it too.

One "fair" way to deal with the hull issue is to 4+ hits on the wings or tail to see if they count, but that seems foolish; I'd only use it to quiet down the whiny easter egg hunter on the other side of the table.

I will say this much: In all cases, being unable to fire at the thing when so much of it could be visible to you seems both wrong and rather unsporting.


1) It then has the majority of its effective, targetable size being unable to hold an objective. It can also crap out a unit of scoring models as it zooms by and can cover 50% of the table from any given position in one swoop while it does so. I would consider this fair enough. Not to mention the fact that a plane VTOLing over some statue or device that is the objective of the battle is pretty stupid, logic-wise. It should have had a rule that made it NEVER scoring; the IG don't need this setup anyway, with the amount of mounted scoring units they can put on the table. And perhaps more importantly, I would think that if it DID capture an objective, it would be by encircling the area in a threatening manner tillg round troops arrived to secure it, rather then by hovering menacingly next to the top floor of a ruin.

2) Forcing the base to be on an objective removes a good amount of strategic placement of the vehicle such as hiding parts of it behind cover to be hull-down. For me, this is critical as the Valkyrie is already forced to sit above most area terrain, so when you can find some that will work, it's very nice! Again, this is a preferential thing, and has really no logical contribution to the debate about the hull. This is just you as a player having to make a tough decision. When the objective is out in the open, all troops have this same consideration to make. That, and it's a plane -- the idea of it hovering in place to fire all its weapons is just totally absurd, especially if it is doing so behind my aforementioned small tree and, by the IG's logic, is untargetable because the "hull" is obscured.

3) Assuming wings are targetable, no other flying transport (or any transport for that matter) is forced to use only part of their targettable hull size when it comes to holding objectives. This, combined with the fact that the flying base for the Valkyrie is just about the same size as the troop compartment, and the fact that the FAQ uses it as a reference point for embark/disembark as well as objectives, makes me feel that for fairness purposes, the wings should not be targetable. This is an advantage, not a disadvantage. You have a huge vehicle that can fit into a space the size of a land speeder. It is the most versatile troop-carring vehicle in the game right now. There has to be a down side to it!

) And finally, if the wings are targetable, any time a Valk is forced to come on the edge of a table without moving, it must always come on facing straight, otherwise a wing is considered off the table. Again, I don't see this as a problem at all. For one thing, you can simply move flat-out and avoid it. For 2, NOT moving flat-out is still enough to get it on the table. There is no way that thing is 12" wide, is it? And for 3...how many jets you see flying into battle sideways, anyway? And for 4 (wow!), it can just come on its movement speed at a different angle, no?

[The Imperial Guard]

wow this thing is becoming more annoying than defilers/soul grinders...:confused:

I'm sorry, I'm new to forums so I hope this is not considered flaming or trolling, but what does a Defilter/Soul Grinder debate have to do with this topic, and what is the point of condemning a forum thread that you have not participated in previously?

This to me is a legitimate debate due to the combination of an unpresidented objective rule being stated in the IG FAQ combined with the vague targeting rules and their application to the Valkyrie as well as the fact that several other people side with me in questioning the validity of the wings as targets. Also consider the fact that if another popular transport, say the Land Raider had been given a similar rule change with an equal dosage of ambiguity, what would the public outcry have been?

[Exitus Acta Probat]

As my original post(s) said, I have issues with the fact that the Valk costs a decent chunk of change for what it can do (and it does alot!), and the recent FAQ nerfed it in regards to the ability to hold objectives.

Actually didn't see it as a nerf, but actually allowing it to function.
In reality, prior to the FAQ, if you applied pure RAW (ack) and measured, the bloody things couldn't contest grud...which sucked. lol
(same with disembarking etc...)
Now if someone wanted to grip about contesting, as long as they let me disembark I really didn't throw a fit...that kind of response, though, and I would usually just pack up and be done.



To me, stating that the base is used for embarking/disembarking made perfect sense. The guys are dropping down/landing/etc. ings of a Valk aHowever, when it also stated that the base is used for objective consideration, it made me question the validity of counting the wings from a gameplay perspective as a legitimate target versus fluff on the vehicle to make it look cool.

The objective consideration is because, staying on its base, it cannot contest...by RAW.
Honestly, it wasn't a nerf...it was a SAVE! :)




4) And finally, if the wings are targetable, any time a Valk is forced to come on the edge of a table without moving, it must always come on facing straight, otherwise a wing is considered off the table.

I find that though it can kinda bite, it doesn't generally kill ya...sometimes, but meh...it's also a flyer that does as much (or more) than a Wave Serpent for (comparatively) cheap. Vendettas make eldar skimmers look like GRUD...which isn't totally fair all things considered, they are kinda supposed to be the kings of the air. :)

but I loves mah valks/vendies.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I'm sorry, I'm new to forums so I hope this is not considered flaming or trolling, but what does a Defilter/Soul Grinder debate have to do with this topic, and what is the point of condemning a forum thread that you have not participated in previously?

Don't tip toe too much, I was the offender ( I believe) in JWolf's reprimand. I shoulda known better, and read too much in your initial response to me.

the Defiler issue being referred to ( I believe ) is a lack of defining boundaries/base/what's hull vs not. It's a similar issue that's died down over time.



This to me is a legitimate debate due to the combination of an unpresidented objective rule being stated in the IG FAQ combined with the vague targeting rules and their application to the Valkyrie as well as the fact that several other people side with me in questioning the validity of the wings as targets. Also consider the fact that if another popular transport, say the Land Raider had been given a similar rule change with an equal dosage of ambiguity, what would the public outcry have been?

Thing though, is that the LR doesn't need a fix, it's pretty clear what is and is not hull for game play...
much as I hate to admit it, and love the model, and love playing with them...
EMP XIX has cause for his reaction, it was an ill thought out model/unit. Shoulda made an arvus lighter for the game instead, woulda been a rhino with jets...easier to deal with. Wouldn't have sold as well though.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Personally I don't know where this whole thing comes from, honestly.

The idea that a vehicle can't be targeted via almost 75% of its body it seems pretty obviously wrong to me, even if the rules say nothing to explicitly state it. Especially when those wings are where most of the weapons are mounted. So it can stand in place behind a big tree or tower, fire to its heart's content, but can't be targeted? I see a very glaring and obvious flaw in that equation.

[The Imperial Guard]

I will preface this by saying, I utterly hate the valkyrie and everything about it. It does not belong in 40k, it is way overpowered and way underpriced for what it can do, it is basically the only thing in the game I think this about, and it annoys me to no end just to even see one of the damned things on the table.

I respect your opinion of the Valk being unbalanced for 40k and I further agree with your statement that it does not fit with the current 40k rules. This thread started because the FAQ changes added some doubt in my mind regarding whether or not the wings can be targeted. Prior to the FAQ, I had considered all parts targetable as well as able to hold an objective, like any other transport. I had also used common sense when it came to deploy troops straight down from the doors on the body. Basically WYSIWYG.



As a result of the rule-bending debacle of this model being concocted in order to sell models to those IG fans who are vehicle nuts, there are obviously a series of problems with this infernal thing, and many of them have ZERO basis in reality of the game's rules. So I deal with them with the only thing that remains: logic.

Once again, I can respect your opinion of the Valk, but I come from the school of belief that a game rule takes presidence over applying logic to 40k, for good or bad.



Regarding shooting the wings and tail: I can only say that clearly, the body of the vehicle aside, it would seem a little asinine to make such a huge model that can so rarely be obscured from view, only to make it untargetable.

Logical solution: Yes, you can hit the wings and tail. If nothing else, for the fact it would be stupid that 80% of your model might be visible behind that especially tall tree, but yet your opponent would be unable to target it.

I've tried to insert logic into previous posts in this thread and been logically countered in every attempt. This further enforces my belief of defined game rules, then logic in 40k. Logically, the Valk is a VTOL aircraft and could hover and land on the battlefield, yet is stuck on an insanely tall base. Logically, the fuselage of an aircraft is much easier to target than the wings and inverse. Logically, keeping the belly of an aircraft over a key objective leaves the vehicle vulnerable to attack from below.



One "fair" way to deal with the hull issue is to 4+ hits on the wings or tail to see if they count, but that seems foolish; I'd only use it to quiet down the whiny easter egg hunter on the other side of the table.

I'm not sure why you felt obligated to refer to someone in this situation as a whiner easter egg hunter. Easter eggs don't require a dice roll and they taste much better than a figurine. All joking aside, why the need to condemn someones choice in play style?



It can also crap out a unit of scoring models as it zooms by and can cover 50% of the table[..] the fact that a plane VTOLing over some statue or device that is the objective of the battle is pretty stupid [..] should have had a rule that made it NEVER scoring[..] the IG don't need this setup anyway[..] I would think that if it DID capture an objective, it would be by encircling the area in a threatening manner[..]
Again, this is a preferential thing, and has really no logical contribution to the debate about the hull.[..] it's a plane -- the idea of it hovering in place to fire all its weapons is just totally absurd. [..] You have a huge vehicle that can fit into a space the size of a land speeder[..]. It is the most versatile troop-carring vehicle in the game right now. There has to be a down side to it!

To keep this reponse from being any longer than it already is, I removed everything but key concepts in your post that I want to address while keeping your context. It's apparent by your post that you have issues with the Valk and I feel a bit of judgement towards my playstyle, which you don't even know. Thats neither here nor there, but you are preaching logic, yet trying to apply your interpretation of modern VTOL combat strategies to the game which don't even relate to this thread. This game takes place in the future and technology changes, and all real-world logic aside, the Valk is a skimmer, not an airplane, so I'd like to keep this discussion in that context. Regarding your comparison of the Valk to other skimmers when it comes to stats unrelated to the thread, I'll just remind you that unlike the Land Speeder, the Valk sits in a tall stand, and it's size is not proporionate to it's increased troop capacity compared to other flying transports. Finally, we are not here to balance vehicles, we are here to talk about the rules.



Again, I don't see this as a problem at all. For one thing, you can simply move flat-out and avoid it. For 2, NOT moving flat-out is still enough to get it on the table. There is no way that thing is 12" wide, is it? And for 3...how many jets you see flying into battle sideways, anyway? And for 4 (wow!), it can just come on its movement speed at a different angle, no?
[/Quote]
Whether or not you see this as a problem based on real (modern) world examples and your playstyle is not what we are talking about in this thread. We are talking about the rules and the impact the FAQ has on the Valk if the wings are targetable. You may not see value in this, but others might. Regarding the different angle, this does not prevent the tail from then being off the table, etc. A scenario that comes to mind is if a Valk comes in on reserves on the table edge and is intercepted by an enemy ability which allows it to be fired on. The tail goes farther back than the flying base, but rules dictate that the base must touch the table edge. What happens if the template lands on the tail which is off the table at that time? Does the template off the table rule apply, or the fact that the Valk's tail is technically there, but off the table itself result in a hit?

[The Imperial Guard]

Actually didn't see it as a nerf, but actually allowing it to function.
In reality, prior to the FAQ, if you applied pure RAW (ack) and measured, the bloody things couldn't contest grud...which sucked. lol
(same with disembarking etc...)
Now if someone wanted to grip about contesting, as long as they let me disembark I really didn't throw a fit...that kind of response, though, and I would usually just pack up and be done.




The objective consideration is because, staying on its base, it cannot contest...by RAW.
Honestly, it wasn't a nerf...it was a SAVE! :)





I find that though it can kinda bite, it doesn't generally kill ya...sometimes, but meh...it's also a flyer that does as much (or more) than a Wave Serpent for (comparatively) cheap. Vendettas make eldar skimmers look like GRUD...which isn't totally fair all things considered, they are kinda supposed to be the kings of the air. :)

but I loves mah valks/vendies.

Thanks for your response, I too love my Valks and Vends! You have great points and I do see their rule as trying to address a prexisting problem, that we thankfully had never even considered in our play group. This thread started out being what I consider a simple concept for consideration after the FAQ was released, but has digressed into the time old debate of rules vs logic. With people seeming to take both sides and no firm rules to back either, I guess it will just come down to each game's opinion. I'm going to put ole yeller down now!

[Ferro]

Actually, FWIW, I too find it odd that objective-contesting distance is measured from the base and not the 'hull.' That doesn't make sense to me, but I can accept it and move on.

It makes total sense to me that dis-/embarkation is measured from the base, and the wings are a targetable part of the vehicle.


1) It then has the majority of its effective, targetable size being unable to hold an objective.
Ya, I agree that's wierd. This seems to be the key issue of this thread, and I think it's a bad call by GW. But so what... at the end of the day it's not really a big deal.

2) Forcing the base to be on an objective...
Well, actually the base can be up to 3" away, but whateva.

3) Assuming wings are targetable, no other flying transport (or any transport for that matter) is forced to use only part of their targettable hull size when it comes to holding objectives.
You've repeated point #1.

4) ... any time a Valk is forced to come on the edge of a table without moving, it must always come on facing straight, otherwise a wing is considered off the table.
I'm not familiar with any circumstance that can force this situation, but that's irrelevant. I think this is a very interesting point for all Valkerie pilots to keep in mind: how close to the table edge can you move a Valkerie? I believe no part of the vehicle should ever protrude off the table. This does not really impact the discussion, but it's a relevant tangent.

Anyway, looks like everyone is getting close to a resolution, yes? :):)

[Ferro]

Ok, I've got it now. Logically it's wierd to me that objective-distance is measured from the base and not the hull. But from a practical/gameplay angle it's the simplest and easiest way to do it.

It's physically difficult to measure 3" from the edge of an objective marker to whatever part of the Valk is up there above it. Image just how complicated the angles could be, how to get your tape down to the objective if it's surrounded by infantry, and just how contentious the measurement could be. Sure, you measured it and the wingtip is 2.9" away from the edge of the objective (measured at some upward slope of about 30degrees), but your opponent doubts the call and has trouble verifying the measurement... can of worms.

Measuring a horizontal distance from the objective to the base eliminates a lot of ambiguity.

[Jwolf]

Wasn't targeting anyone; just noticed that the posts were becoming more tense and figured everyone could use an excuse to ratchet things down a notch or two. Thanks to IG and EAP for stepping forward to say "I may have been over the line." I think behavior like that is exactly what is missing from too many forums, often reducing them to haunting by bullies and trolls. Thank you for being responsible adults!

[RocketRollRebel]

I'm sorry, I'm new to forums so I hope this is not considered flaming or trolling, but what does a Defilter/Soul Grinder debate have to do with this topic, and what is the point of condemning a forum thread that you have not participated in previously?

This to me is a legitimate debate due to the combination of an unpresidented objective rule being stated in the IG FAQ combined with the vague targeting rules and their application to the Valkyrie as well as the fact that several other people side with me in questioning the validity of the wings as targets. Also consider the fact that if another popular transport, say the Land Raider had been given a similar rule change with an equal dosage of ambiguity, what would the public outcry have been?

haha no man I meant that the rules for the valk are sounding as confusing as the soulgrinder/defiler with its crazy legs! Its either huge or the size of a matchbox car!:p

The way I've always done the valk is that I do all of my measuring from the base and I work all LoS issues from the model it self. I guess I would use the base for determining hits from blasts as well but if the FAQ says wings and hull then I guess thats how it is.

[Abominable Plague Marine]

Id like to mention something I dont think this discussion has yet included, and though I dont think its a wise idea, I think it is something worth considering.

Assaulting a Valk/Ven (or even ramming one). Seeing as you cannot not normally be within 1" of an enemy model (this works both ways Valk/Ven players) unless assaulting or ramming.

Now I consider myself a generous opponent and I have no problem discussing an issue or even dicing off for it if it cannot be resolved, but for all those Valk/Ven players who insist on playing RAW, I have this little passage for you...


Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either. Note that a skimmer must be set down on the table and left in place at the end of its move - it cannot be left hovering in mid-air!

I didnt see the word "hull" used once!

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Id like to mention something I dont think this discussion has yet included, and though I dont think its a wise idea, I think it is something worth considering.

Assaulting a Valk/Ven (or even ramming one). Seeing as you cannot not normally be within 1" of an enemy model (this works both ways Valk/Ven players) unless assaulting or ramming.

Now I consider myself a generous opponent and I have no problem discussing an issue or even dicing off for it if it cannot be resolved, but for all those Valk/Ven players who insist on playing RAW, I have this little passage for you...

I didnt see the word "hull" used once!


Don't think it isn't a bad Idea at all, bringing up anything with possible applicability is appropriate.

The problem (I think) that makes this so difficult is that the Valk is a unique piece of equipment.
The largest model in the core game, and mechanically unsound with regards to the rules.
Even that rule line you quoted goes against basic RAW with the whole 'must use the base supplied' rule as well, since a skimmer cannot be on the ground AND on it's base at the same time. (unless you accept the base as defining it's contact with the ground)

I THINK that the rule in question actually refers to placing the flight base atop non-terrain features (ie;your own land raider, enemy immobilized rhino etc etc).

As IG put it, the FAQ cleared up a lot of major issues, but certainly not all! :)

[Dingus]

This is also a very debated topic in my local gaming group. I have 6 Valkyries and coming from my background as a pilot I count the entire model as the hull.
Trying to play the Valkyrie as RAW simply does not work.
Firstly aircraft / helicopters do not have a hull by definition. They have a fuselage, tailplane and wings.
If you really tried to push RAW I would pull out a dictionary and not allow you to shoot my Valkyrie as it has no hull by definition.
Secondly the wings and tailplane are a very critical component on both aircraft and helicopters as all control surfaces are located on these 2 major areas. I emplore you to try and figure out the lift force from any given wing then work it out once the wing has a massive hole in it due to battle damage. L = cL(1/2RhoVsquared)S
Thirdly by not alowing your opponent to shoot a major part of the model by defining the fuselage as a hull is not just cricket. That is pulling out the asshat award IMO.
Fourthly try and put a 3 model Valkyrie squadron in coherence by measuring coherency to the fueslage / hull. It is physically impossible as models cannot be placed over each other.

In summary the Valkyrie is a broken model running off RAW. The FAQ fixed most of its problems but there are still a lot more to be defined. Most units work fine by RAW. Most people know that the Valkyrie has issues and simply try to push RAW in the sake of beeing an asshat.

Don't be that asshat and allow a slight bending of the rules for this screwed up unit.

[crazyredpraetorian]

Dingus, what do you think about the scoring issue? ie: Scoring is measured to the base. The wings do not count for scoring purposes and that is my main issue. The wings should count for scoring or not count for shooting. A little consistency would be nice. I do agree the model is broken, this should have been addressed in FAQ, as well.

[Dingus]

Well the FAQ sorted that one out. You use the base.
Skimmers can never come off their base unless they are imobilised and crash.
If you were not to use the base as the measuring point for an objective then you would have a lot of trouble contesting / claiming an objective as a Valkyrie is > 3" off the ground and you would then have to measure to the model.Try to find a point on a Valkyrie that is < 3" from the ground.

[DarkLink]

This is also a very debated topic in my local gaming group. I have 6 Valkyries and coming from my background as a pilot I count the entire model as the hull.
Trying to play the Valkyrie as RAW simply does not work.
Firstly aircraft / helicopters do not have a hull by definition. They have a fuselage, tailplane and wings.
If you really tried to push RAW I would pull out a dictionary and not allow you to shoot my Valkyrie as it has no hull by definition.
Secondly the wings and tailplane are a very critical component on both aircraft and helicopters as all control surfaces are located on these 2 major areas. I emplore you to try and figure out the lift force from any given wing then work it out once the wing has a massive hole in it due to battle damage. L = cL(1/2RhoVsquared)S
Thirdly by not alowing your opponent to shoot a major part of the model by defining the fuselage as a hull is not just cricket. That is pulling out the asshat award IMO.
Fourthly try and put a 3 model Valkyrie squadron in coherence by measuring coherency to the fueslage / hull. It is physically impossible as models cannot be placed over each other.

In summary the Valkyrie is a broken model running off RAW. The FAQ fixed most of its problems but there are still a lot more to be defined. Most units work fine by RAW. Most people know that the Valkyrie has issues and simply try to push RAW in the sake of beeing an asshat.

Don't be that asshat and allow a slight bending of the rules for this screwed up unit.

I agree with this. I personally think that if you try and say "this part of the model counts, but this doesn't", things just get too complicated. When I think of extraneous bits that can be ignored, I think of antenna or other small little bits. TLOS works well when you stick with "if you see it, you can shoot it". If you try and throw on a bunch of if, and's and or's, then there isn't much point in trying to replace the more complicated rules from last edition.

On a side note, I recall someone pointing out on some forum somewhere (I think warseer), that they kinda wanted to model a Daemon Prince with giant wings shrouding the entire model. Since wings don't count, you can't target the wings, but because you can't see the body of the model, you can't shoot the model. He was joking about it, but it is situations like that for which I prefer to stick with "if you can see it, you can shoot it".

[crazyredpraetorian]

I understand they sorted the scoring issue in the FAQ.....and their ruling makes sense. However, my point is the wings are not able to count as scoring. Therefore, the wings should not be treated as the "hull". On every other model with wings, the wings are treated as ornamentation.

[Dingus]

CrazedPraetorian, pg 16 of the BGB classes antennae, wings, and other ornamentation for infantry models. It quite clearly states arms, legs and torso not the above mentioned bits.
Hence the ruling on the invisible wings on a Daemon Prince as mentioned above as it was a monstrous creature not a vehicle.

The FAQ simply states the base counts as measuring for scoring. Nowhere in the FAQ does it state that you measure scoring distance from the hull as quoted below.


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.

[Rapture]

That settles nothing.
1) Measuring RANGE specifies HULL in the rulebook.
2) Unit coherency states: "between one MODEL and the NEXT". It does not specify the hull or base as the end-point of measure.
3) Even if coherency does require a hull measurement, the 4" Vehicle Squadron requirement can easy beachieved by staggering models, which from a real world perspective make sense. Staggering combat aircraft has been standard practice since WW2.

This isn't WW2 it is a game of plastic army men. Find the best way to wade through the unclear rules stick with it.



Firstly aircraft / helicopters do not have a hull by definition. They have a fuselage, tailplane and wings.

Good point. I guess Valkyries can't be shot at all. Now its settled. :)

[RexScarlet]

MRB pg 60 1st paragraph; "(ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)
It does not say; ,"and" etc.

So, you are speculating your dozer-blade and weapon upgrade comparisons as being decorative, thus rationalizing “the wings must be decorative as well.”

Where does it say "vehicle upgrades" (such as your dozer-blade comparison) do not block LOS? (I guess with this logic all Vindicators upgraded with “siege shields” will be getting cover saves when shot from their front. see below). rofl

So, if the wings are “not” the Hull for targeting purposes, then what is done when the wings “block line of sight” to the Hull (as in a shot from the side), since your argument does not clarify ignoring anything except what is listed on pg 60?

Where in the MRB on pg 62 does it say a vehicle can "not" block LOS to its-own hull?

A) Give the Valkyrie a cover-save from its-own interposing wings that are covering half the hull (i.e. vehicle)?

B) Sorry, from that angle, the wings are blocking the Hull completely, so you do not have a shot?

Additionally, since when are engines surrounded by armor/cowling/plasti-steel “not” Hull? (There are engines/exhausts and landing-gear in the front wings).

As for the “Base” FAQ…
Could it simply be just for ease in play? Any BFG players can tell you about measuring to the stem of the base for range purposes can be tricky at times…

Wings are Hull, for shooting purposes.

[mercer]

You measure from the hull like it says in the rule book, for shooting weapons you measure from the barrel. It would be like saying I can shoot your autocannon turret on the predator because the barrel is longer than the hull. You fire at the hull as per the rules.

The disembarking from the base has just been made easier for game play.

TBH, I don't see what the problem is. The rules say measure from the hull.

[Dingus]

TBH, I don't see what the problem is. The rules say measure from the hull.

And therein lies the problem which has clearly been stated in the last 3 pages. There is no clear definition of what constitutes the Valkyries hull.

[mercer]

I think its quite clear from common sense what the hull is, since when do you call wings the hull?

[Xas]

I think its quite clear from common sense what the hull is, since when do you call wings the hull?

someone already stated in a former posting, that in technical speak a flier does not have a "hull".
its wings, fuselage and whatnot - for exact stuff read the former 5 pages.

so... you cannot shoot a valky because it has no gull \o/

[mercer]

In the technical real world it doesn't, so in this case substitute the word hull for fuselage, common sense once again.

It would be like saying you can shoot the turret on a predator or leman russ because its on los while the hull is hidden. I think people are doing too much grey and should just look at the obivous things.

On a side note how does imperial armour do thinks like thunderhawks? Surely the rules would be the same.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I think its quite clear from common sense what the hull is, since when do you call wings the hull?

M: a statement of absolute conviction does not the muddy waters clear up.
The rule regarding hull was written prior to the advent of the valkyrie. Lacking a true 'hull' in the classic sense, you have to extrapolate to what is intended in game function, which is a definition of real world/game world critical superstructure vs extraneous bits and nubbinz (antenna, radar dish, guide-on flag etc).


In the technical real world it doesn't, so in this case substitute the word hull for fuselage, common sense once again.

It would be like saying you can shoot the turret on a predator or leman russ because its on los while the hull is hidden. I think people are doing too much grey and should just look at the obivous things.

On a side note how does imperial armour do thinks like thunderhawks? Surely the rules would be the same.

M: You can target a turret or sponson. Where does it say you cannot?
In fact, I have never encountered a game or player that stated in any way shape or form that you cannot. Some argue that the turret doesn't count as facing side ( which I don't agree with) thus granting a bonus to cover save, but no one I have ever played in tourney (large and small) has made the mistake of suggesting that because I can only see the turret of their Leman Russ (or predator, or falcon) that I cannot engage it.

Imperial armour has no special rule for wings...it is assumed, as has been since apoc as well, that if you can see the wing you can see the aircraft. Though rules for 'flyers' don't benefit from cover ever...so that's moot.

[Ferro]

In the technical real world it doesn't, so in this case substitute the word hull for fuselage, common sense once again.

That's not common sense, it's an assumption. You're assuming the simple substitution is hull = fuselage, but I'm (and most of us) are saying that hull = fuselage & wings.

GW is obviously playing fast and loose with the term 'hull.' So what does it really mean as applies to a flier/skimmer?

If hull = the main body of the tank--everything that makes it a tank, defines it's overall shape and significant systems (and not including little extra bits like antennae);

then the appropriate analogy for a flier/skimmer is:
Hull = the main body of the plane--everything that makes it a plane, defines it's overall shape and significant systems (and not including little extra bits like antennae).

Everyone agrees that at a minimum Hull = at least the Fuselage.
The only vaguery now is whether you consider the wings to be an insignificant component of the vehicle, like an antenna.

This is where the common sense part comes in. If the wings are a significant part of the vehicle (...and they are, come on now), then they are included in the meaning of the term Hull.


The issue is that a significant portion of the vehicle (as phrased in the premise) does not count for objectives. This is a valid issue; it's not vague, we all understand it. We can propose a solution that we like better, or just let it stand.

The uproar is that the proposed solution is even worse than the original issue. You don't solve this by disregarding wings in all respects. You solve this by not measuring to the base for objectives.

That should be where this topic leads, if anywhere.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I still think the fact that what people are arguing for would already make the best transport APC in the game have 80% of its mass rendered untargetable is an obvious sign that this is wrong.

I will blow the wings and tails off of every one of these BS stupid money-making flavor-of-the-month tank-porn-fan-appeasing hunks of Apocalypse-wannabe bullcrap and if anyone argues with me otherwise I am just going to pack my army and leave because it's just asinine to think that the model whose only disadvantage is its size is 3/4 untargetable because people want to apply wording from the Monstrous Creature rules about Wings like it's a canonical example.

[TSINI]

I always allow my opponent to target wings and tail.
It's kind of a give and take.
I talk to my opponent at the beginning of the game and say 'hey, here's the deal. we use the base for table-top level interactions and embarkation/assault, we use the whole model (wings AND tail) for targetting and everything works out fine!'
I have YET to have anyone disagree with me on that call.
As the FAQ has clarified that a bit, we can assume some of it is handled, but still not the 'what can I target/where's the model'

So, I will still follow this guideline.
You can shoot my wings,AS long as I can use the base(or hull) for defining whether I am on the table/within 12" for scouting.

(also, If I can shoot wing mounted weapons, the wings are OBVIOUSLY valid for targeting. )

whee, everybody wins! :)

in the few tourney games and the couple of apoc games ive played, this is exactly how i worked out shooting/embarking/ assaulting etc rules.

yes you can shoot the wings, and yes you can stand underneath them. to assault you have to be against the base.
it doesnt make sense to me having a "blank space" under the flyer, (most monsters in the galaxy aren't scared of shadows)

[Dezartfox]

Yuu can shoot the wings, exactly like you can shoot the legs on a Defiler :P
Measuring for assault and tranport is done from the base.
Shooting from the weapons.

I don't see how anyone can argue that?

[mercer]

What is the rule for flyers in apocalypse and imperial armour, if any?

[TSINI]

What is the rule for flyers in apocalypse and imperial armour, if any?

imperial armour has dropped their own brand flyer rules, because apocalypse has dealt with them in a much simpler manner, you can now only use flyers in apoc games (unless in a friendly game where you simply include those rules) and there are no special rules that dissallow wings or tails.

the skimmer rules were also written up with landspeeders and blob shaped vehicles in mind, so you can quote the whole rulebook but i don't think its going to get you anywhere.



i think rules aside, we should concentrate on the spirit of the game.

5th edition loves True LOS, so i'm all for the wings and tail being targetable.

5th edition also includes access points. so the doors on the actual model are important to the placement of disembarking, so friendly disembarking units will HAVE to be under the wings/tail if they are to be within 2" of the side doors, therefore if friendly units can do it, so can enemy models, and terrain would alse be able to be under the wings/tail.

now for shooting purposes, it would be utterly rediculous to claim that you can't shoot at the wings or tail (nearly 2 thirds of the vehicle itself) so just deal with it in a logical manner. its a high flying skimmer, so models can be placed underneath the wings If they can physically fit, the base is used for hand to hand combat and disembarking (keeping the doors in mind), and enemy units can hit the vehicle even if only the wings are in range.

yes its not "perfect tournement logic" but people keep forgetting, the game wasnt designed with tournements in mind...




Yuu can shoot the wings, exactly like you can shoot the legs on a Defiler :P
Measuring for assault and tranport is done from the base.
Shooting from the weapons.

I don't see how anyone can argue that?

exactly THIS. desartfox has hit the nail on the head

[mercer]

Unfortunately logic and common sense don't go hand in hand with warhammer 40,000 :P

[fade_74]

I have a solution to this problem. All IG players that use valkyries....magnetize the wings and weapons. If anyone tries to bring this arguement to your game....just take off the wings and remount the weapons onto the roof. Put the wings in your army transport and smile across the table and say "target the wings now."

I don't know if this has been posted yet but.....a Defiler is a walker...don't walkers have different targeting rules than skimmers? I can't remember exactly and I am at work without my rulebook lol.

[mercer]

Hmmm I don't think so. It says when shooting at walkers you pick a facing side, like vehicles.

[RexScarlet]

The Wing Argument…

Does the Valk have wings, or “weapon mounts” (sponsons) by definition?

“Wings;” a means of flight or ascent, one of the horizontal airfoils on either side of the fuselage of an airplane

The Valk is a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing “aircraft” not an “airplane,” and engines two on top and two smaller on either side make it fly (lift) (again assumedly, since the Valk is not real)

The part in question contains exhaust/engines (assumedly for lift, since it is a VTOL), landing gear (retractable), and holds weapons (a variety).

Does the Valk actually have Ailerons, Flaps, or Spoilers on the part in question, which would make it actually have “wings” by definition on its sides?
NO

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thurzofoto/2590668264/

Not even wings for argument sake.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

So you are trying to tell me, that the Valkyrie's wings are actually sponsons. No offense meant friend, but...that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You can't even begin to use that argument anyway, as using it would break 1000 things in 40k just off the top of my head.

Besides if you are going to use such a real life-oriented argument, then that would also mean the very basic "IF I BLEW THE WING OFF WOULD IT STILL BE FLYING? F*** NO!" argument has to be considered as well.

[GM Rex Nihilo]

The hull is roughly the size of a Rhino or Chimera. It makes sense to use the "hull" as a targeting reference for gaming purposes. You don't measure from the wing tips for scoring purposes.

The hulls comparable size to another vehicle is irrelevant.

You measure from the vehicles hull and in the case of a flyer/skimmer it includes the wings or else I am going to mod a flying v wing ... that you can't target! :rolleyes:

[TSINI]

Does the Valk actually have Ailerons, Flaps, or Spoilers on the part in question, which would make it actually have “wings” by definition on its sides?
NO


the valkyrie does have flaps/ailerons etc, theyre modelled with hinges on the trailing edges to show where the flaps would be.

being a vtol aircraft, think harrier jumpjet, when its in flyer mode, the top jets propell it forward, pushing air over its wings (creating lift). in Vtol (skimmer) mode, it hovers around like a harrier or helicopter using the nozzles in the wingtips.

i really don't know how anyone can argue any more than has already been said, yes shoot the whole damn aircraft wings tail and all. and yes, move underneath the wings etc, just keep clear of the base (which forms the hull at ground level)