Today's instalment of Rules Conundrum concerns the Valkyrie.
 |
| No, not that Valkyrie. |
The Valkyrie poses not a few problems, rules wise. Most of these (not to say all of them) stem from the nature of the model itself.
First, the position of the Valkyrie relative to the board is quite unlike any model that went before it (the Storm Raven and Dark Eldar flier are both later additions to the range, though many of the issues raised regarding the Valkyrie apply to them, too). Unlike these earlier models, the Valkyrie sits a good four inches up in the air.
There is no such thing as "within 2 inches" of the Valkyrie, unless we're talking about really large models, or stuff on high terrain. Likewise, the Valkyrie only blocks the movement of really large models (there's no risk of moving within 1 inch).
Some of this could have been alleviated by the base, if it weren't for this sentence:
"The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both" (BBB 71).
So, the base effectively isn't there, except for when assaulting the skimmer. The opponent can place models on the Valkyrie's base, if he so pleases.
Secondly, what constitutes the hull of a Valkyrie?
Would you, as is stated on page 16, ignore the wings? Or would you, more reasonably (since a vehicle has no torso, head, legs or arms) consider the rules on page 56 to supercede rather than complement those early Line of Sight rules?
Thirdly, and this one goes back to the base and assault quote above, how do you assault a skimmer? I had this one actually crop up in a game recently. My Trygon went charging after a Vendetta (a Valkyrie's grumpy cousin) only for me to realize that there's no way for me to get into base-to-base contact. Why? The Trygon's head hit the wing/nose of the Vendetta. It would have had to limbo its way underneath.
Conclusion? It says "into contact with". No mention of base contact. We agreed (I asked while moving, to avoid an argument later on) that face-to-hull contact was quite adequate.
Fourthly, the FAQ:ing FAQ. I get why GW chose to tack on the Storm Raven's disembark-and-play-with-objectives-from-the-base. It does simplify quite a lot. It is not, however, what the rules say. An errata to that effect, fine. You admit you left it out. Same thing if you call it an amendment. But the FAQ's should be rules based, and then that answer is about as right as a gerbil in a tutu.
Okay, so that last one is me getting annoyed at GW's dreadful FAQ skills, but still.
I might think of more. In which case I might actually have something to write about in a few days' time.
'Til then.
Some of this could have been alleviated by the base, if it weren't for this sentence:
"The skimmer's base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both" (BBB 71).
So, the base effectively isn't there, except for when assaulting the skimmer. The opponent can place models on the Valkyrie's base, if he so pleases.
Secondly, what constitutes the hull of a Valkyrie?
Would you, as is stated on page 16, ignore the wings? Or would you, more reasonably (since a vehicle has no torso, head, legs or arms) consider the rules on page 56 to supercede rather than complement those early Line of Sight rules?
Thirdly, and this one goes back to the base and assault quote above, how do you assault a skimmer? I had this one actually crop up in a game recently. My Trygon went charging after a Vendetta (a Valkyrie's grumpy cousin) only for me to realize that there's no way for me to get into base-to-base contact. Why? The Trygon's head hit the wing/nose of the Vendetta. It would have had to limbo its way underneath.
Conclusion? It says "into contact with". No mention of base contact. We agreed (I asked while moving, to avoid an argument later on) that face-to-hull contact was quite adequate.
Fourthly, the FAQ:ing FAQ. I get why GW chose to tack on the Storm Raven's disembark-and-play-with-objectives-from-the-base. It does simplify quite a lot. It is not, however, what the rules say. An errata to that effect, fine. You admit you left it out. Same thing if you call it an amendment. But the FAQ's should be rules based, and then that answer is about as right as a gerbil in a tutu.
Okay, so that last one is me getting annoyed at GW's dreadful FAQ skills, but still.
I might think of more. In which case I might actually have something to write about in a few days' time.
'Til then.
No comments:
Post a Comment