Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sunhero,
Please take your time to explain your point.
Why would the lack of Battle Brother status matter?

JinxDragon wrote:
Sunhero,
All models on the same side are friendly models.
- Friendly and Enemy Models

As all Models on the same side are friendly by default, we would require some sort of Rule which changes the Fortifications status to 'Enemy' before we can legally deny the application of a Rule which targets a Friendly Model. This is why the Allied Matrix is so important, as it contains 'Treat / Count as an Enemy' clauses which force other Rules to ignore the friendly by default status. As Fortifications lack a faction, they are unable to Resolve the Matrix even if it can be shown that they are still bound by it and other Faction related Rules. This means, the best case outcome of such an argument would be to prove that Fortifications are broken to the point they can not be used in game without 'blue-screening' it.

Fortifications, lacking a faction, are unaffected by the rules on how different factions interact.
The CAD and Allied detachments require that all units be either of the same faction, or have no faction at all.
If I run a Grey Knight army, with a bastion (CAD), and a second CAD of chaos daemons with another Bastion, then the daemons and grey knights are restricted by the Come the Apocalypse, where as the two bastions get along with each other, and both forces, just fine.

I don't see how Allies (page 126) has any bearing at all on Fortification which, by lacking a faction, completely ignore that whole section.

@ jinx sorry check what I wrote again I changed it right after i posted it.
your both right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the passage "or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle" caught my attention.
I had previously ignored it because i thought it only applied when attacking buildings.

this solves a lot of problems.

not shore as it solves the ic problem but that is in the special rules section.

Sunhero wrote:
@ jinx sorry check what I wrote again I changed it right after i posted it.
your both right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the passage "or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle" caught my attention.
I had previously ignored it because i thought it only applied when attacking buildings.

this solves a lot of problems.

not shore as it solves the ic problem but that is in the special rules section.

That is only for determining if it can be targeted by a shooting attack, psychic power, or charged.

That is specifically under the Repel The Enemy Special Rule, and applies to that instance only. It's when GW gave a special rule to Terrain to help with storming a building.

"When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

reread it there is a clear separation between sections and "or affected by a special rule." clearly applies to all special rules though it is in the Attacking buildings section that's why I over looked it at first.

I really think we need to stop trying with this. Terrain has so many special rules that negate each other, there is not point in trying to deep strike a bastion. Unless you get the BAO are LVO behind you, its not going to go far anyways.

1. Common Sense...as far as that goes in 40k
2. Just top level reading the rules...it doesn't make sense
3. Even repeating your arguments to others, it doesn't make sense, or they had to suspend what little belief they had to even consider it.

At this point, I would move this to HWYP it since the rules don't clearly support it and unfortunately don't say "You cannot deep strike terrain."

It seems very TFG and WAAC -ish at heart. Besides the fact that you play against a Tau player who will murder it with interceptor...it's a one trick pony who I'm not sure why you are wasting time in this, rather than developing valid strategies


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunhero wrote:
"When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

reread it there is a clear separation between sections and "or affected by a special rule." clearly applies to all special rules though it is in the Attacking buildings section that's why I over looked it at first.

And re-read what Section that is actually for instead of cherry picking words and phrases to try and support your argument. As an auditor, you CANNOT choose a single word or phrase and think it will suffice. The entirety of the paragraph or section applies. You guys have still not shown anything valid enough to stand up. It's merely been suppositions and half statements. Mostly been on generalized statements and not mentioneds.

Please point out where you can use unit and transport specific rules to affect Terrain, as that is what Fortifications and buildings are. The WWP affects transports, a building is not a transport. It is a piece of scenery that is placed, and then during deployment units may be embarked in it. Thats why "ASPECTS" of the transports rules apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the vary least, do a re-hash post and spell out point for point the sections that support your decision. Don't pick and choose phrase either, spell out the entire thing and then explain why. I think that's part of the problem. People say: "Oh that's a model" and then nothing else...Summarize the proven statements after 8 pages.

Sunhero wrote:
(just re read it and i think your right.)
was reading the attacking buildings section.

the passage "or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle" caught my attention.
I had previously ignored it because i thought it only applied when attacking buildings.

this solves a lot of problems.

not shore as it solves the ic problem but that is in the special rules section.

Well Right there you just said it. Treat it like a vehicle if that is the case the IC cannot join it all by it self because IC cannot to attached to vehicle only models it is in the IC section. It is the second sentence ," IC cannot however, join units that contain vehicles or Monstrous creatures.

You keep saying like a vehicle so right there kills it. RAW Wins. NOT allowed point blank

 foto69man wrote:

At this point, I would move this to HWYP it since the rules don't clearly support it and unfortunately don't say "You cannot deep strike terrain."

It seems very TFG and WAAC -ish at heart. Besides the fact that you play against a Tau player who will murder it with interceptor...it's a one trick pony who I'm not sure why you are wasting time in this, rather than developing valid strategies

From a fluff stand point, sections of the city fall out of the webway into real space. Sections have been forced out by rival kabals. Having a section shunted into real space doesn't seem outside of the fluff of DE.
For it to be a TFG or WAAC, it would actually have to be useful. I started up a thread in tactics to look at the tactical application of it, and the results where pretty limited.
HIWPI, is that I wouldn't play it. It really isn't useful. An AV10 3+ jinking transport that has some mobility is a lot better than an AV14 never moves again bunker.
Tau murdering things with interceptor fire is a problem for the whole of the DE army, not just a bunker gimmick.

@fireraven we where discussing a separate issue of ic joining buildings because claimed buildings are classified as units.

I'm not shore what your saying isn't allowed but if its the wwp the ic embarks on the building this is outlined in the original post.

 foto69man wrote:
I really think we need to stop trying with this. Terrain has so many special rules that negate each other, there is not point in trying to deep strike a bastion. Unless you get the BAO are LVO behind you, its not going to go far anyways.

1. Common Sense...as far as that goes in 40k

Well, in the lore, the Imperium does have temples designed to be dropped from orbit, and Orks have Roks.