The amount of discussion that goes into some topics that have been pretty clearly faqed never ceases to amaze me.  Case in point I found an argument on Warseer about how to handle the Valkyrie or Stormraven’s model on the battlefield.  Let’s suspend all of our disbelief for just a moment and forget that there isn’t even a model for the Stormraven and just debate how we should go about measuring distances to and from the Valkyrie for purposes of (dis)embarking, assaulting, shooting, maintaining the proper distance from the vehicle, and so on.  This should be a productive and informative talk, no?  Oh wait, you’re telling me the official FAQ already clears this up.  So what the fuck is this then- ?

As always, none of the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but their avatars have been for my own amusement.  In the interest of making things flow more smoothly, I have shifted the order of a few comments, but assure you that these are all the words of the original posters shitty grammar, speling and, all.  My own comments will be snowmobiled into the conversation in red text.

Lord Ekard- Hi, i have some questions for the movement of a valkyrie/stormraven

i can end the movement of the model with the flying base on the table but with the hull (some part of this) over, without a physical contact, other friendly/enemy models?

the only rule that i must consider is the minimal distance of 1″ from enemy model with the hull and the flying base, it’s correct?

i ask this beacause italian version of the rulebook ~ok, ok, so I was about to start ripping on your grammar, until I caught that little bit.  Your English is much better than my Italian, so I’ll give you this one. create some problem to some players and many of they think that valkyrie can’t end his movement if under not the flying base, but under the hull (without a physical contact) there are other models…

thank you for the answers ~I’ll do you all a favor and translate that all into the question he meant to ask:  When determining distance to other models, does one measure from the hull, base, or some other part of a Valkyrie model?


You can get the same debate over the english written rules too!

General GAP would have it that the valk/raven/whatever skimmer occupies the area of its base, + the volume of the vehicle itself, suspended in the air.  ~to find the approximate volume occupied by the Valkyrie, we could measure its surface area and multiply that by its height.  Not sure how exactly that really helps us here, but you could do it.  Alternatively, you could find the volume by using a displacement test.  You’ll have to find someone else’s models to use, though, as I’m not taking mine for a swim.

Some see this, as the base, + volume + an imaginary area, the same as the outline of the vehicle as a block reaching the table top.  ~others of us have already read the FAQ for this and know how to handle this situation already….

Imo, RAW supports the former, though there can be problems when a skimmer crashes on top of stuff …

Lord Ekard- by RAW what’s the correct version?
Bunnahabhain- As Jubilex just pointed out, nobody knows! ~did he point that out?  Too bad nobody has mentioned the FAQ yet.  I feel like it would really clear this whole mess up.

However, the most common one I encounter, the one I think fits RAW best, and the most sensible/workable approach as I see it, is area of base + the vehicle itself in the air, so it can fly over troops, low terrain etc, etc…  ~I have read, re-read, re-re-re-read this last statement and cannot for the life of me figure out what the hell this guy is talking about.  I’m glad that he’s let us all know that skimmer can fly over shit, though.  Thanks.

Personally I’d use the shape of the vehicle, seen from top and won’t allow minis below it.  ~good luck disembarking from those side doors, then.
IJW- Which makes it extremely hard to assault… ~it would actually give you a bigger area to assault if playing this wrong, like the above poster.  You’d be able to assault those big ass wings and the tail instead of the base like if you’re playing this right.  Not to mention, how the hell do you charge a VTOL anyway?  I guess that would vary from army to army, but I like to imagine that a catapult may be involved.
No, why should it? Attacking it then of course will be able also by using the shape, seen from top (hitting the wings from below). It’s only a definition of shape.  ~man, I wish somebody would prove everyone wrong with the FAQ
How do you disembark from it then? Even when using the shape, the doors are smack in the middle of that shape. ~well you could maybe use the tail exit, but I don’t know if a whole squad of 10 would fit.  I guess everyone would have to die if they tried to get out of it.  I guess the 5th edition maxim holds true- never get out of your transport
Hendarion- I won’t bother for guys (dis-)embarking. ~so the rules you’re making up only apply when it’s convenient and lack any solid reasoning.  That is ballsy, my friend. You’ve got some moxie there. Same for any other vehicle.  ~wait, what other vehicle has exits that are under part of the model?
ehlijen- I don’t understand.

Do you mean you’ll let people walk under against your house rule to do that? In which case, how is that anything like other vehicles where this issue doesn’t even come up?  ~Ok, so I just figured out how I’m going to make my own Stormraven conversions.  So I’m going to take a bunch of Landraiders and Valkyries and mash them together.  It’ll have stubbylittle vestigial wings like the Dyson Pattern Stormbuster, but will occupy an area of the table that is roughly 6×4.  Now, of course it’s only going to be on a flying base, but since we’re not actually paying attention to that anymore, my model and the scoring unit it is transporting will occupy the entire table, claiming all objectives and making sure that my opponent can’t deploy.  Here’s to hoping that I get the first turn….

I’m very confused now.

Ah, so you do that instead of using the IG FAQ? That makes more sense.  ~ok, so I’ll give you a point for finally mentioning the FAQ and for being a sarcastic bastard, but -3 points for not actually quoting or citing the FAQ.
carldooley- maybe we should FAQ it so that it is open topped? ~no way I am ever flying in that thing while we are at it, lets make it so that terminators & Ogryns can ride in them, and they will become GKT delivery systems for turn 1 assaults
Formerly Wu-
The rule of thumb I use is:  ~please say it’s the FAQ.  Please please please….

For all measuring, determining terrain status, assaulting and (dis)embarkation purposes, use the Valkyrie’s oval flying base. The base is the Valkyrie’s “footprint” on the game board.

For all line-of-sight purposes, and for determining whether a blast template is over the hull or not, use the model.  ~hmmm ummm well you pretty much just quoted the FAQ there.  Not sure if you read it already and are just trying to look smart and claim others work as your own, but you’ve got the rules right at least.

Well, this is the faq response.  ~well shit, it only took us like 15 posts, but finally we have somebody with some sense.

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, the valk (and I would say any other vehicle that may happen to fall into this rules black hole) has the exception of measuring to the base in these circumstances.

As they seem to accept, there is a potential for a flying base to interfere ~sounds more like the base clarifies how the vehicle acts, rather than interfering with certain aspects of a vehicles performance (objective taking and dis/embarking).
I think this is additional proof, that the base + volume only interpretation is the RAW of it.

If the “area” beneath the vehicle is not considered part of the vehicle, except for the base for assaulting purposes, then this “exception” for the valk would be unnecessary.

In order to assault a valk (any skimmer), you must either be in b2b with the base and/or the hull.
It’s not possible to be in b2b with the hull,* so it is only possible to assault the actual base. ~boy, this sure was necessary.  Please rephrase more stuff that the FAQ has already made clear.

With this in mind, I don’t think it’s entirely defendable, that the (flying) vehicle is in contact with the table, for anything else except assault and then only with the area of the base.  ~who cares?  Not only is this redundant, but it’s also pointless and redundant.

Wrecked skimmers, I would believe, have a not entirely RAW get-out clause in the non-removal of flying stand and hovering wreck advice.  ~what the fuck are you talking about and what does this have to do with anything?  Why did you have to keep on writing after you posted the official ruling?
Exploded ones aren’t too much trouble either, but, there is still the potential minefield of disembarking.

* EDIT. Unless it has been immobilized and the flying base removed.

For more Internet insanity head over to Dethron’s own blog Dick Move as well check out House of Paincakes blog network!