http://40kforums.com/vb/showthread.php/ ... -situation

Thoughts?

I'm not familiar enough with the issues to have an opinion

"While playing a game last night, we had a little situation occur.

Logan (solo) was next to a Storm Raven. But was poised for a charge directly to Astaroth and Death Co, his charge path taking him to btb with Astaroth.

The Storm Raven was shot down and wrecked, a Valkyrie model was used as the Storm Raven. When the SR was wrecked, it was taken off it's base and it ended putting models into dangerous terrain, where previously there was none, specifically Logan and Astartoth. My opponent claimed that I had to take off the model and leave the base as the wreckage marker, I argued that it's the vehicle and not the base. Thereby focing Logan to charge through dangerous terrain (no frag grenades) to strike last and most likely die, which is what my opponent didn't want, obviously.

Who was right? "
------------------------------

I prefer to read it here so I draged it across to do so... back in a second with my take on it.

Wrong... the Valkyrie/Stormraven should only be taken off its stand and placed on the table if there is room to do so. Putting in down on top of models underneath it means it wasn't possible. Therefore the wrecked vehicle stays hovering.

Any chance of page references when quoting or referring to rules?

Page 71, BRB, third paragraph under 'Shooting at Skimmers',
"If a skimmer is immobilised or wrecked, its base is removed if possible. If this is not possible (the base may have been glued in place, for example), don't worry about it. The skimmer's anti-grav field is obviously still working and an immobilised skimmer will simply remain hovering in place...a wrecked one is now a floating, burning wreck."

I still don't believe models should or could be placed under a skimmer (even a Valkyrie) but that just my opinion and was covered in a different thread.

As far as th OP, KInG is correct that the model can remain on its stand.

Personally I wouldn't mind house ruling it either way, but if it hasn't been covered by your group, the rulebook is your definative reference.

On another topic, the using of a Valkyrie to represent the stormraven maybe wrong if the piccie we say of the SR is anything to go by. It appears from that piccie that the SR just sits on the floor between moving.

As for any model that will or does use a Valk flying stand, don't the rules already stop people from placing models below the 'flyer'. I know at the GT we were warned about overlapping Valks, and hanging them off the table's edge. I would agree with TW and say Logan was illegal placed before the SR was wrecked.

The Storm Raven photo is just a photo - some of the early Valkyrie shots had it on a landing pad surrounded by IG. Don't read more into the photo than is actually there. If it's a skimmer it will have a base, and it'll probably have the large flying base as used for the Valk.

Nothing stops you putting models under a Valk - you have to if you want to assault it as the models have to touch the base. The ruling about not allowing the wings/hull off the table has nothing to do with whether models can be placed under the wings/tail.

The 1" rule applies.
If a model can fit under the wings and still be 1" away at every point then no problem.
Means infantry will probably make it (baring any banner poles ect) but larger things like ogryns may not.

KInG wrote:As for any model that will or does use a Valk flying stand, don't the rules already stop people from placing models below the 'flyer'. I know at the GT we were warned about overlapping Valks, and hanging them off the table's edge. I would agree with TW and say Logan was illegal placed before the SR was wrecked.

Something around here is right.. or at least should be..I had an opponent claim that GT judges had said that the wings and tailfin of the vendetta didn't exist (and that he could have it flying around at zero height forever)..If that *became* the case (which they didn't mention in the FAQ they only said the whole pants about models in it counting as being on the base if the situation was advantageous -bloody guard lovers). Then the falling vehicle would only be the footprint of what was in game terms existent.. (and be very similar to when people nerf orks by saying that you can’t overplace orks outside the models template in an exploded (tiny)battlewagon crater)

Deception’s response of whatever is most advantageous at the time is why you have to spend 5 minutes before any game about drop pod doors..Game killer.
Consistency of all 3 is the key the whole under a bridge 3rd D thing is a puddle of worms that GW is determined to avoid and therefore we should also IMO .

KMB, don't forget there's a slight differnce between 'placed in the footprint of the vehicle' and 'replace model with a suitable sized piece of difficult ground/crater'. You can have a crater slightly larger than the model's size, but the transported models still have to be placed in the footprint of the vehicle.

And I conceed, Dan and LATD are correct, models can go under the Valk but not within 1", and that's not just along the floor, but heightwise also, as was stated.

If you couldn't place models under another, things like multi-level ruins and walkways would never work!

KInG wrote:KMB, don't forget there's a slight differnce between 'placed in the footprint of the vehicle' and 'replace model with a suitable sized piece of difficult ground/crater'. You can have a crater slightly larger than the model's size, but the transported models still have to be placed in the footprint of the vehicle.

Poo tay toe, Pot tat tu.. Although the crater may inaccurately be modeled differently they must stay within the original size.. (all my craters are the end result to prevent the means being a problem )
Unless you meant something completely different.
AOS is really slow (web site loading wise) tonight, must dash losing to LH in bloodbowl

I'd have to disagree... the "scattered wreckage" would not be the same shape as the original vehicle, hence the use of the word scattered. So your crater is allowedto be larger, without being silly large, but the dudes have to be placed where the vehicle was.

mattjgilbert wrote:If you couldn't place models under another, things like multi-level ruins and walkways would never work!

I still think there's a big difference between being on different levels of terrain and being under another model.

If you are on the 2nd floor and I am on the 1st floor, we are each on a different floor, on a different surface.

But if we are both on the ground and you are on a 6" high flying stand and I am on a regular base, aren't we both (our bases that is) still on the ground and so still on the same level?

This is why I thought that you could not have models placed under a Valk. I don't play IG though.

Thank you timewizard for the page numbers. Flying based skimmers are always going to be a bit of a nightmare for system that wasn't (or at least doesn't seem to be) designed for them. As for Drop pods I think they'll always be a head ache.