So I was playing against an IG player at a tournament this month and he loaded up a skyshield landing pad with 4 russ's and a decked out command squad basically filling the pad to capacity. If you're running a shooty army that would be ok except I was running my wraith wing cron list. Unfortunately the wraiths never made it to the pad but if they had how do you assault if there's no room to place the model on the pad? Can I assault? I'm thinking about switching one of my units of wraiths to scarabs&spyders which may or may not make a difference - I guess I'll have to see...
you need a vehicle, tank shock the infantry unit up there. they won't be able to move more than 1" from the vehicle. A bunch of models get removed from play. Aim for the important models.
Or more likely tank shock through the unit to hit a russ and still get the same result except you can get in closer to a russ to help you place your vehicle up there.
Secondly get your unit you want to assault with under the shield. Pop one guy out so you can see one of his figures. Declare your assault and you only risk losing that one figure. Roll for difficult terrain and claim wobbly model as you balance on the wall between 2 of his models. Everyone else piles in under your 1 model. Leaving room for him to do his pile moves by dropping off the shield
Oh and third, if you can blow up a vehicle he won't get the invul save from it. (debatable) is a friendly vehicle exploding counted as a "enemy shooting attack" I wouldn't think so.
unfortunately the skyshield rules are not clear on whether you should treat it as a ruin or not but those rules seem to fit it the best as it is clearly not a building or normal battllefield debris.
If that is the case you can use the rules for assaulting in a ruin found on page 101 which states that you are engaged if the head of your model is within 2" of the base of their model, it also states that you can assault by moving your model as close as possible and make sure your opponent knows you are in assault.
Best to agree beforehand that it should be treated as a ruin but the rules seem to work with it the best.
hhhmmmm....good points. He had to snake the CCS between the tanks. I probably should have called him on it though 'cause I think he had them snaking between two tanks that were part of one squadron. Can you do that?
After that match I started thinking about making substitute tokens for the wraiths for instances where they need to be under things like the skyshield which are way to short for them. Is that acceptable to do? Wraiths are also notoriously wobbly models - even on flat terrain. I was considering using 40mm bases with pictures of wraiths on them for instances where they will not stand up (which is all instances where the terrain is not completely flat).
The way I've always seen it played is that if an assaulting unit has the range to get to base-to-base with a unit on the pad, it is considered in combat even if it can't fit up there. Granted, this may not be fully in accordance with the rules, but it seems to work.
Just because it is not a ruin doesn't mean the tank can fly up 3 inches.
I can see a tank being deployed up there but unless it had a ramp, a tank cannot "jump" up there.
That is not true, Tanks can reach the top of the pad as sirlynchmob has said.
"To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as movlng through difficult terrain." P.115 BRB
So all that is needed is a Difficult Terrain test to move on to or off of it.
That doesn't mean anything. It just means you roll for distance or take a test upon getting on or off.
Access points is what matters and that is on a per model basis. Can a tank climb up 3 inches? Infantry can climb and skimmers, flyers, jetbikes, jump and FMC's can "land" on the pad and take tests where applicable.
Just because it is not a ruin doesn't mean the tank can fly up 3 inches.
I can see a tank being deployed up there but unless it had a ramp, a tank cannot "jump" up there.
That is not true, Tanks can reach the top of the pad as sirlynchmob has said.
"To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as movlng through difficult terrain." P.115 BRB
So all that is needed is a Difficult Terrain test to move on to or off of it.
That doesn't mean anything. It just means you roll for distance or take a test upon getting on or off.
Access points is what matters and that is on a per model basis. Can a tank climb up 3 inches? Infantry can climb and skimmers, flyers, jetbikes, jump and FMC's can "land" on the pad and take tests where applicable.
The sky shield has no access points.
Page 115 – Fortifications, Skyshield Landing Pad.
Ignore the reference to Access Points & Fire Points.
Just because it is not a ruin doesn't mean the tank can fly up 3 inches.
I can see a tank being deployed up there but unless it had a ramp, a tank cannot "jump" up there.
That is not true, Tanks can reach the top of the pad as sirlynchmob has said.
"To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as movlng through difficult terrain." P.115 BRB
So all that is needed is a Difficult Terrain test to move on to or off of it.
That doesn't mean anything. It just means you roll for distance or take a test upon getting on or off.
Access points is what matters and that is on a per model basis. Can a tank climb up 3 inches? Infantry can climb and skimmers, flyers, jetbikes, jump and FMC's can "land" on the pad and take tests where applicable.
The sky shield has no access points.
Page 115 – Fortifications, Skyshield Landing Pad.
Ignore the reference to Access Points & Fire Points.
My tournament on saterday had a guard player load as many artillery he could on it. Manticores, basilisks, couldn't even hurt him. I lost horribly that game.
undertow wrote: The way I've always seen it played is that if an assaulting unit has the range to get to base-to-base with a unit on the pad, it is considered in combat even if it can't fit up there. Granted, this may not be fully in accordance with the rules, but it seems to work.
IIRC, this method is mentioned in the ruins rules.
conker249 wrote: My tournament on saterday had a guard player load as many artillery he could on it. Manticores, basilisks, couldn't even hurt him. I lost horribly that game.
You should have informed him that vehicles can't make invulnerable saves. Bet that would have gotten him flustered.
conker249 wrote: My tournament on saterday had a guard player load as many artillery he could on it. Manticores, basilisks, couldn't even hurt him. I lost horribly that game.
You should have informed him that vehicles can't make invulnerable saves. Bet that would have gotten him flustered.
Is that how I can start shooting my buddy's Raiders? Nope, no invuln save for that, its a vehicle.
conker249 wrote: My tournament on saterday had a guard player load as many artillery he could on it. Manticores, basilisks, couldn't even hurt him. I lost horribly that game.
You should have informed him that vehicles can't make invulnerable saves. Bet that would have gotten him flustered.
Why not?
Or is this that bs "Invunerable Saves against wounds only" Argument?
conker249 wrote: My tournament on saterday had a guard player load as many artillery he could on it. Manticores, basilisks, couldn't even hurt him. I lost horribly that game.
You should have informed him that vehicles can't make invulnerable saves. Bet that would have gotten him flustered.
Really, demon rule on chaos vehicles seem to strongly disagree
Now that's just silly. That's like arguing that a model can throw a grenade and use a witchfire power in the same shooting phase, because throwing a grenade is not "firing a weapon". The intent is so clear that any other interpretation leads to madness.
reaper with no name wrote: Now that's just silly. That's like arguing that a model can throw a grenade and use a witchfire power in the same shooting phase, because throwing a grenade is not "firing a weapon". The intent is so clear that any other interpretation leads to madness.
Please note that the default argument in YMDC is "Rules As Written", not "How I Would Play It". As noted several posts above, in this case RaW is indeed ludicrous and not how it is actually played.
Wraiths also ignore effects of difficult terrain do they just roll their normal 2D6 for charge range. Also they can re-roll that if they've only moved 6" in their movement phase due to being jump infantry
Yeah, the Skyshield is a bit of a mess, ruleswise.
It's difficult terrain, so models just need to roll sufficient distance to reach the top in order to move there. But as to what happens if they don't make it all the way... that's anybody's guess.
We wouldn't normally assume that a model could float an inch above the ground when moving up, say, a rocky outcrop... but the Skyshield is a little unique in being difficult terrain with a large space under it that's just empty air. We have nothing to go on as to just how the studio intended this to work, and the fact that they changed the rules almost immediately after publication suggests that they're not really sure either.
My recommendation would be to just not use Skyshields. They're on my list along with anything with Battlements of 'things not to use until GW decides to write consistent rules for them that actually make sense.'
When I put my rule lawyer hat on, I'm going to say that according to the rules, this is 100% legit. However, this violates the Douchebag Clause and makes the game un-fun.
I can definitely see what GW wanted to do with having the Skyshield Pad, but they didn't consider all angles when it comes to implementation. Oh well.
NEWater wrote: When I put my rule lawyer hat on, I'm going to say that according to the rules, this is 100% legit. However, this violates the Douchebag Clause and makes the game un-fun.
NEWater wrote: When I put my rule lawyer hat on, I'm going to say that according to the rules, this is 100% legit. However, this violates the Douchebag Clause and makes the game un-fun.
What are you talking about?
Rephrase:
While stacking the Pad full of models and preventing other models from assaulting anything on the pad may be a legit move if one strictly follows the rules to the letter, it's a douche move.
The sky shield landing pad, iirc, is it grants a 4+ invulnerably to anyone behind the walls and it does not discriminate on the type of unit. IE tanks would get it. However, the topic of actually assaulting it. I would say for wraith and such, that they are treated as being in base to base contact despite not being able to physically place the model on the walls of the landing pad. In this case "lazy model" syndrome would kick in, leaving the wraith on the ground floor of the skypad or where they fit, and rolling the combat accordingly. Then placing the wraith there once the space opens up.
it is not a building nor a ruin so it doesn't have levels, and since all you need is difficult then you just simply move on and off as if it were level to the ground.
cormadepanda wrote: The sky shield landing pad, iirc, is it grants a 4+ invulnerably to anyone behind the walls and it does not discriminate on the type of unit. IE tanks would get it. However, the topic of actually assaulting it. I would say for wraith and such, that they are treated as being in base to base contact despite not being able to physically place the model on the walls of the landing pad. In this case "lazy model" syndrome would kick in, leaving the wraith on the ground floor of the skypad or where they fit, and rolling the combat accordingly. Then placing the wraith there once the space opens up.
Right but only ruins and barricades fudge the requirement for base to base close combat, the skyshield doesn't.
So, again, anyone know what an infantry model would have to roll on a difficult terrain test to move on top of a skyshield landing pad? Yeah....
it is not a building nor a ruin so it doesn't have levels, and since all you need is difficult then you just simply move on and off as if it were level to the ground.
If you're trying to move from the table to a point 3 inches away, you need to be able to move at least 3 inches.
it is not a building nor a ruin so it doesn't have levels, and since all you need is difficult then you just simply move on and off as if it were level to the ground.
If you're trying to move from the table to a point 3 inches away, you need to be able to move at least 3 inches.
so i go back to my original question then? how does a tank get up to the skyshield pad then?
cormadepanda wrote: The sky shield landing pad, iirc, is it grants a 4+ invulnerably to anyone behind the walls and it does not discriminate on the type of unit. IE tanks would get it. However, the topic of actually assaulting it. I would say for wraith and such, that they are treated as being in base to base contact despite not being able to physically place the model on the walls of the landing pad. In this case "lazy model" syndrome would kick in, leaving the wraith on the ground floor of the skypad or where they fit, and rolling the combat accordingly. Then placing the wraith there once the space opens up.
Right but only ruins and barricades fudge the requirement for base to base close combat, the skyshield doesn't.
So, again, anyone know what an infantry model would have to roll on a difficult terrain test to move on top of a skyshield landing pad? Yeah....
4" or more. Up and over any side of it. You can also move through the middle of it as all you need to move up is the 4" roll, it doesn't restrict you to go up the side of it.
Easy enough for infantry models to do on a move, even realistically probably assaulting with the extra d6 and taking the two lowest.
it is not a building nor a ruin so it doesn't have levels, and since all you need is difficult then you just simply move on and off as if it were level to the ground.
If you're trying to move from the table to a point 3 inches away, you need to be able to move at least 3 inches.
so i go back to my original question then? how does a tank get up to the skyshield pad then?
The rules say they can with a difficult terrain test, or for a vehicle a dangerous terrain test to see if it becomes immobilized by trying to get up onto it.
WMS doesn't let you place a model somewhere it couldn't otherwise go, but it is intended to allow you to position a model somewhere it should be able to stand but can't... And because of the bizarre rules given to the skyshield, the empty space under it is not actually empty space... It's difficult terrain, and so models should be able to stand on it.
Which is silly, but no more so than the rest of the skyshield's rules.
If gw do ever bother to faq it, I would expect that they'll just treat out as a ruin for the purpose of assaulting models on it.
insaniak wrote: WMS doesn't let you place a model somewhere it couldn't otherwise go, but it is intended to allow you to position a model somewhere it should be able to stand but can't... And because of the bizarre rules given to the skyshield, the empty space under it is not actually empty space... It's difficult terrain, and so models should be able to stand on it.
Which is silly, but no more so than the rest of the skyshield's rules.
If gw do ever bother to faq it, I would expect that they'll just treat out as a ruin for the purpose of assaulting models on it.
but WMS does let you put a figure in the space between two of his models against the wall, with the rear of your model on the wall, so your model falls inward onto his models Ergo you made it up to assault him.
The area under the shield is just open terrain and empty space, the difficult test is to get up onto the platform. Or through the platform really, the top is an area of open terrain, not impassible terrain, so you can go through it.
40k-noob wrote: I would like to see the rule that lets tanks move vertically off the battlefield and into a new level of open terrain.
very narrative and cinematic
oh and the actual rule is pg 115. "to move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain." can a tank move through difficult terrain? yep. there ya go.
It's not a ruin, don't pay attention to those rules for this discussion.
40k-noob wrote: That rules doesn't govern vertical movement nor regular movement either. It just says that vehicles are not slowed but do risk being immobilized.
Again, what rule lets a tank move vertically off the table?
sure it does. you are moving onto the skyshield right? So as a vehicle you move to the point you want to ascend, you make your dangerous terrain test, then move onto the skyshield and finish moving not being slowed by the difficult terrain.
"onto" as in vertically up 3.5" to get on the skyshield.
40k-noob wrote: That rules doesn't govern vertical movement nor regular movement either. It just says that vehicles are not slowed but do risk being immobilized.
Again, what rule lets a tank move vertically off the table?
sure it does. you are moving onto the skyshield right? So as a vehicle you move to the point you want to ascend, you make your dangerous terrain test, then move onto the skyshield and finish moving not being slowed by the difficult terrain.
"onto" as in vertically up 3.5" to get on the skyshield.
Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
40k-noob wrote: That rules doesn't govern vertical movement nor regular movement either. It just says that vehicles are not slowed but do risk being immobilized.
Again, what rule lets a tank move vertically off the table?
sure it does. you are moving onto the skyshield right? So as a vehicle you move to the point you want to ascend, you make your dangerous terrain test, then move onto the skyshield and finish moving not being slowed by the difficult terrain.
"onto" as in vertically up 3.5" to get on the skyshield.
Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
well if you want to think that way and look for something that says any model can move vertically, then no model, unit, vehicle, nor anything in the game can vertically to get onto the sky shield. Not even jump units, they can move over terrain and land on impassible terrain. Or if the rule I quoted allows for models to move vertically onto it, then it allows tanks as well.
insaniak wrote: WMS doesn't let you place a model somewhere it couldn't otherwise go, but it is intended to allow you to position a model somewhere it should be able to stand but can't... And because of the bizarre rules given to the skyshield, the empty space under it is not actually empty space... It's difficult terrain, and so models should be able to stand on it.
Which is silly, but no more so than the rest of the skyshield's rules.
If gw do ever bother to faq it, I would expect that they'll just treat out as a ruin for the purpose of assaulting models on it.
The empty space isn't empty space? What?
Good to know, I'll start getting my heavy weapons ujp into higher vantage points in mid air, there's some thick moisture up there no doubt.
40k-noob wrote:Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
How is the rule that specifically says that units can move up there with a difficult terrain test not a rule that says that they can move up there?
Crablezworth wrote:The empty space isn't empty space? What?
Models can move up to the skyshield as if they are moving through difficult terrain. so that empty space is difficult terrain, not empty space. It can't be empty space, because models can't fly unless they have a rule that specifically says that they can.
So either the skyshield is granting everyone the ability to fly (which it isn't) or the space under it looks empty, but is actually terrain...
The skyshield is messed up, as I believe has been mentioned. If it had just included an access ramp, all of this silliness could have been avoided.
40k-noob wrote:Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
How is the rule that specifically says that units can move up there with a difficult terrain test not a rule that says that they can move up there?
Crablezworth wrote:The empty space isn't empty space? What?
Models can move up to the skyshield as if they are moving through difficult terrain. so that empty space is difficult terrain, not empty space. It can't be empty space, because models can't fly unless they have a rule that specifically says that they can.
So either the skyshield is granting everyone the ability to fly (which it isn't) or the space under it looks empty, but is actually terrain...
The skyshield is messed up, as I believe has been mentioned. If it had just included an access ramp, all of this silliness could have been avoided.
So wait, you're saying you can just melt through the floor? what?
Moving on to and off of via difficult terrain is one thing, melting is another. The path a model takes is really important. I still don't understand the whole occupying thin air concept. If you're doing the whole melting thing wouldn't models still need to start their move at one of the 4 legs?
What you're saying is a rhino can drive underneath a skyshield landing pad then tank shock up through the pad? Really?
Crablezworth wrote: So wait, you're saying you can just melt through the floor? what?
Yes, of course. Just as you can move through trees in a forest base.
What you're saying is a rhino can drive underneath a skyshield landing pad then tank shock up through the pad? Really?
Yes, because you can move through the elements of difficult terrain. Aside from for LOS purposes, the physical objects in a difficult terrain piece are just there to show that there is a piece of difficult terrain there.
40k-noob wrote:Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
How is the rule that specifically says that units can move up there with a difficult terrain test not a rule that says that they can move up there?
For vehicles, difficult/dangerous is not allowance to move vertically. All it does it make the vehicle test for immobilization.
my concern is how can a tank move vertically off the table?
If a vehicle can move vertically, then next time my flyer gets locked velocity or has no worth while place to go then I am going to say it flew straight up(what ever required amount of inches) and then back down to land in the same place so I can fire at my same target.
I am sorry but I have yet to see any allowance for vertical movement.
40k-noob wrote:Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
How is the rule that specifically says that units can move up there with a difficult terrain test not a rule that says that they can move up there?
For vehicles, difficult/dangerous is not allowance to move vertically.
In this case it is. Specifically.
Editing to add: Or if you prefer, it is an allowance to move diagonally up or down. Either way the allowance is there, as vehicles are units.
Perhaps you would be better server teleporting them up there? In any case, the (sufficiently high) difficult terrain roll allows units to move on to the pad.
40k-noob wrote:Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
How is the rule that specifically says that units can move up there with a difficult terrain test not a rule that says that they can move up there?
For vehicles, difficult/dangerous is not allowance to move vertically. All it does it make the vehicle test for immobilization.
my concern is how can a tank move vertically off the table?
If a vehicle can move vertically, then next time my flyer gets locked velocity or has no worth while place to go then I am going to say it flew straight up(what ever required amount of inches) and then back down to land in the same place so I can fire at my same target.
I am sorry but I have yet to see any allowance for vertical movement.
The rules say to move on or off the pad counts as moving through difficult terrain.
I suppose you're saying you can't drive up the hill on the board, as that's vertical too?
40k-noob wrote:Now you are just filling in the blanks.
There are no rules for vertical movement except for buildings or ruins, and the pad isn't either of those.
How is the rule that specifically says that units can move up there with a difficult terrain test not a rule that says that they can move up there?
For vehicles, difficult/dangerous is not allowance to move vertically. All it does it make the vehicle test for immobilization.
my concern is how can a tank move vertically off the table?
If a vehicle can move vertically, then next time my flyer gets locked velocity or has no worth while place to go then I am going to say it flew straight up(what ever required amount of inches) and then back down to land in the same place so I can fire at my same target.
I am sorry but I have yet to see any allowance for vertical movement.
The rules say to move on or off the pad counts as moving through difficult terrain.
I suppose you're saying you can't drive up the hill on the board, as that's vertical too?
If that hill has a cliff face, I'd say no to levitating up a cliff face. I guess I'm weird like that...
Again, this is crable ignoring the actual wms rules in favour of a local house rule. You can, indeed, move onto the sky shield with a difficult terrain test, vexauses that's what the rules actually say.
None of those are actually legal, except for the skyshield one... and in actual practice, I suspect that the skyshield would only be allowed for assaulting. Most players would expect you to move either completely on or completely off.
Again, WMS doesn't give you permission to put the model somewhere it couldn't otherwise go. It just lets you consider a model to be position in a place where it is legally allowed to move but can not physically stand.
A model is allowed to move up to a skyshield despite there being nothing for it to actually stand on on the way up there. So the space leading up to it is a valid position for WMS.
There is no rule that lets a model balance on top of a tree on a branch that isn't big enough for it to actually stand on.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Again, this is crable ignoring the actual wms rules in favour of a local house rule. You can, indeed, move onto the sky shield with a difficult terrain test, vexauses that's what the rules actually say.
Well to be fair the actual nature of the terrain rules states that you're supposed to define how terrain works before the game... and with Skyshields I'd make that a priority.
And if the space beneath a Skyshield is DT, then does that mean we still get LOS through it? Might be better to just scratch-build a Skyshield with access ramps on it and no empty space beneath...
40k-noob wrote: Still I would like to see the rule that allows for vertical movement off the table so I can make use of it with my Flyers and FMC's.
There is no rule that allows for vertical movement off the table. That's not what is being discussed. The rule under discussion is one that allows you to move vertically up onto a Skyshield.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andilus Greatsword wrote: And if the space beneath a Skyshield is DT, then does that mean we still get LOS through it?
Yes. Why wouldn't you? You get LOS through a forest.
40k-noob wrote: Still I would like to see the rule that allows for vertical movement off the table so I can make use of it with my Flyers and FMC's.
There is no rule that allows for vertical movement off the table. That's not what is being discussed. The rule under discussion is one that allows you to move vertically up onto a Skyshield.
And how exactly does a rhino do that if not moving vertically off the table and then moved onto the Pad. What you are saying is that a Tank can do this ( See Red arrows)and I want to know what rule allows that?
40k-noob wrote: And how exactly does a rhino do that if not moving vertically off the table and then moved onto the Pad.
Yes, it's moving vertically. That doesn't give you permission to just move up into the air anywhere on the table. It is a specific permission given in the skyshield rules.
...and I want to know what rule allows that?
The rule has been pointed out numerous times.
A rule that says you can move up onto the skysheild means that you can move up onto the skyshield. I'm honestly boggled as to just what is unclear about that.
40k-noob wrote: And how exactly does a rhino do that if not moving vertically off the table and then moved onto the Pad.
Yes, it's moving vertically. That doesn't give you permission to just move up into the air anywhere on the table. It is a specific permission given in the skyshield rules.
...and I want to know what rule allows that?
The rule has been pointed out numerous times.
A rule that says you can move up onto the skysheild means that you can move up onto the skyshield. I'm honestly boggled as to just what is unclear about that.
Again, Difficult/Dangerous for a vehicle is not an allowance to move vertically, it is purely a test for immobilization. Nothing more.
Per BRB "Vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain. However, they treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain instead. A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test is instantly Immobilized "
Nothing in that rule say you can make your tank move vertically off the table and onto the Pad.
Lets just say, for arguments sake that you can, what happens to the tank if it fails the test and becomes immobilized?
40k-noob wrote: Again, Difficult/Dangerous for a vehicle is not an allowance to move vertically, it is purely a test for immobilization. Nothing more.
Once again, the Skyshield rules say that it can move up onto the skyshield. Why would you assume that this does not allow it to move up onto the skyshield?
Lets just say, for arguments sake that you can, what happens to the tank if it fails the test and becomes immobilized?
I already answered that. It stops at the point that it enteres the terrain, which would be level with the edge of the terrain piece.
Now is that 4 or higher if the model is in base with the skyshield or do they moonwalk at a 45 degree angle through the air (which is apparently difficult terrain)?
If infantry models can't see the unit they want to assault, does wobbly model syndrome get around it?
Crablezworth wrote: Now is that 4 or higher if the model is in base with the skyshield or do they moonwalk at a 45 degree angle through the air (which is apparently difficult terrain)?
Only the space contained by the terrain feature is difficult terrain. The space around it is not.
This really isn't as complicated as you seem intent on making it.
If infantry models can't see the unit they want to assault, does wobbly model syndrome get around it?
Crablezworth wrote: Now is that 4 or higher if the model is in base with the skyshield or do they moonwalk at a 45 degree angle through the air (which is apparently difficult terrain)?
Only the space contained by the terrain feature is difficult terrain. The space around it is not.
This really isn't as complicated as you seem intent on making it.
If infantry models can't see the unit they want to assault, does wobbly model syndrome get around it?
Why would WMS have anything to do with LOS?
Still not sure where you're getting the whole the air underneath it is terrain stuff from.
DeathReaper wrote: "To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain." P.115 BRB
So all that is needed is a Difficult Terrain test to move on to or off of it.
Therefore the space underneath the pad must count as Difficult terrain as we are told that moving "onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain." P.115 BRB
We had this problem at the Doubles at Warhmmer World. I placed Mordrak underneath the pad. The pad was crammed with IG Infantry blob and I wasn't sure if I could charge. The TO comes along and says use it like a ruin and allowed my charge despite being unable to fit any models on it.
Actually, in that situation you wouldn't be able to charge due to not having LOS... If you're underneath the pad, the pad itself would be blocking LOS to your charge target.
So how do your models move up through Ruins? I have yet to see a staircase on a set of ruins.
Ruins have a rules for climbing, they also don't let you float in mid air between the table and the floor you're trying to reach if you don't roll high enough. They also don't allow tanks to climb...
You indeed do "float" between floors as you have no way to get up otherwise. I see rules for moving in ruins, but nothing for climbing. Those rules pretty much say you can go through the floor above you if you make the DT test, much the same as the Skyshield does.
So how do your models move up through Ruins? I have yet to see a staircase on a set of ruins.
Ruins have a rules for climbing, they also don't let you float in mid air between the table and the floor you're trying to reach if you don't roll high enough. They also don't allow tanks to climb...
the skyshield has rules for moving up onto the skyshield. and it even has ladders.
the how and why the model gets up there is irrelevant really. but if it makes you feel better you can imagine them doing some cool grappling hook ascension like batman. Or coming up the middle and blowing a whole in the middle of the pad, which then instantly heals itself so you can stand on it models are assumed to have brought cutting tools, acidic disintegrators, and pure muscle to climb after all.
Tanks don't need to climb, they can move through difficult terrain, they can move onto the sky shield. Imagine it any way that makes you feel warm and fluffy but new house rule, if you paint a rebel flag on top of a tank, it can jump by rolling 2d6 and taking the highest in inches
Praxiss wrote: Take a single Ani barge. With all those units sitting on top of each other you could a lucky roll with the Arc rule and tear his army a new one.
But with the barge firing a potential 12 shots by itself, then the arc rule potentially hitting every other unit with 6" with another 6 hits.....something should get through.
Lets assume there are 6 units up there.
Poentially you are hitting with 12 S7 and 30 S5 hits......if you roll all 6's (which won't happen, i'm just stating best case scenarios)
DeathReaper wrote: No not unbeatable, but if there are softer targets guarding objectives you are not going to waste your time with the units on the skyshield.
I thought the point of this was that his opponent deployed EVRYTHING on the landing pad?
insaniak wrote: Look at it the other way then: if the space under the pad isn't terrain, how are models moving through it to get to the pad?
The rules tell us that models can fly through that space as if it was difficult terrain. Ergo, that space is treated as difficult terrain.
I think that's his point actually, the rules don't specify how you get on top... like you said, the rules (or lack thereof) for Skyshields are terrible.
DeathReaper wrote: No not unbeatable, but if there are softer targets guarding objectives you are not going to waste your time with the units on the skyshield.
I thought the point of this was that his opponent deployed EVERYTHING on the landing pad?
Which is silly if there are two or three objectives per side, just move to the open objectives and dont worry about what you kill on the pad, as the objectives are what matter 5/6 times.
Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?
undertow wrote: Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?
I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Why did 6th ed have to go full weetaaaaahd?
undertow wrote: Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?
I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Why did 6th ed have to go full weetaaaaahd?
undertow wrote: The way I've always seen it played is that if an assaulting unit has the range to get to base-to-base with a unit on the pad, it is considered in combat even if it can't fit up there. Granted, this may not be fully in accordance with the rules, but it seems to work.
I thought the landing pad was a fortification. There are rules for assaulting into a fortification. If you can't place your model in a fortification, then it can't assault. Hence why you're troops are safer there. I'll look for a page number, quote, etc.
undertow wrote: Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?
I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Why did 6th ed have to go full weetaaaaahd?
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Not exactly MFA, but it's dirty considering how good the skyshield is currently... and how idiotic its rules are.
boyd wrote:
undertow wrote: The way I've always seen it played is that if an assaulting unit has the range to get to base-to-base with a unit on the pad, it is considered in combat even if it can't fit up there. Granted, this may not be fully in accordance with the rules, but it seems to work.
I thought the landing pad was a fortification. There are rules for assaulting into a fortification. If you can't place your model in a fortification, then it can't assault. Hence why you're troops are safer there. I'll look for a page number, quote, etc.
I have the big rule book - not the dark vengence rule book.
On page 95 of my rule book, it says that battlements are defined as building or structure that has a flat roof that can accomodate units. Battlements do not have fire points and use the normal rules for line of sight. The difference between a building is that you can shoot back at these units instead of firing at the building. Also the unit is not fearless because they are not in a building. The battlement holds as many models as can be fit on the structure.
In my opinion, the landing pad would count as a battlement because it fits the definition above - the rules for the landing pad indicate that it can hold as many models that can fit, it has no fire points, you can shoot at the models and you're not hitting the building, you're hitting the model's armor.
Now assaulting the battlements: Units on battlements cannot be assaulted except by units in the building below them. Grenades, however can be employed against them by units assaulting below the building. When a unit assaults a bulding, any of its models that are within 8" of the battlements can each throw one grenate (if they have grenades) onto the battlements instead of striking the building in close combat, or throwing grenades into fire points. Grenades with blasts do d3 hits and grenades without blast do 1. Both grenades will also hit the building as well if there is an AV on the building (bastion/fortress of redemption).
This is different from shooting in which only one model gets to throw a grenade.
boyd wrote: I have the big rule book - not the dark vengence rule book.
On page 95 of my rule book, it says that battlements are defined as building or structure that has a flat roof that can accomodate units. Battlements do not have fire points and use the normal rules for line of sight. The difference between a building is that you can shoot back at these units instead of firing at the building. Also the unit is not fearless because they are not in a building. The battlement holds as many models as can be fit on the structure.
In my opinion, the landing pad would count as a battlement because it fits the definition above - the rules for the landing pad indicate that it can hold as many models that can fit, it has no fire points, you can shoot at the models and you're not hitting the building, you're hitting the model's armor.
Now assaulting the battlements: Units on battlements cannot be assaulted except by units in the building below them. Grenades, however can be employed against them by units assaulting below the building. When a unit assaults a bulding, any of its models that are within 8" of the battlements can each throw one grenate (if they have grenades) onto the battlements instead of striking the building in close combat, or throwing grenades into fire points. Grenades with blasts do d3 hits and grenades without blast do 1. Both grenades will also hit the building as well if there is an AV on the building (bastion/fortress of redemption).
This is different from shooting in which only one model gets to throw a grenade.
Crablezworth wrote: So wait, you're saying you can just melt through the floor? what?
Yes, of course. Just as you can move through trees in a forest base.
What you're saying is a rhino can drive underneath a skyshield landing pad then tank shock up through the pad? Really?
Yes, because you can move through the elements of difficult terrain. Aside from for LOS purposes, the physical objects in a difficult terrain piece are just there to show that there is a piece of difficult terrain there.
You CANNOT move up through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad, nor can you move down through it. Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building. If there's a window in the building, a hole, then yeah you could move through it. To get up and down from the Skyshield Pad you roll for Difficult Terrain needing 3" to get over the height factor, which you also have to do in a ruin or building level. But it's also a Fortification, not just terrain like a forest.
The floor and legs would block line of sight, but models could go underneath the Pad if they can fit, thus blocking LOS from the shooters on top of the Pad. While not clearly written, it's clearly modeled as a leveled structure, so I'm pretty certain vehicles cannot ride up upon it from ground level. Don't have my rulebook with me at the moment, but unless there's a rule you cannot deploy a vehicle on an upper level, you could deploy tanks on it (imagine they teleported down at the beginning of the battle).
I don't recall ever reading a rule that says vehicles cannot get an invulnerable save, but the Skyshield rules say a unit on top of it receive a 4+ invulnerable save, that issue I'll have to check up upon.
boyd wrote: I have the big rule book - not the dark vengence rule book.
On page 95 of my rule book, it says that battlements are defined as building or structure that has a flat roof that can accomodate units. Battlements do not have fire points and use the normal rules for line of sight. The difference between a building is that you can shoot back at these units instead of firing at the building. Also the unit is not fearless because they are not in a building. The battlement holds as many models as can be fit on the structure.
In my opinion, the landing pad would count as a battlement because it fits the definition above - the rules for the landing pad indicate that it can hold as many models that can fit, it has no fire points, you can shoot at the models and you're not hitting the building, you're hitting the model's armor.
Now assaulting the battlements: Units on battlements cannot be assaulted except by units in the building below them. Grenades, however can be employed against them by units assaulting below the building. When a unit assaults a bulding, any of its models that are within 8" of the battlements can each throw one grenate (if they have grenades) onto the battlements instead of striking the building in close combat, or throwing grenades into fire points. Grenades with blasts do d3 hits and grenades without blast do 1. Both grenades will also hit the building as well if there is an AV on the building (bastion/fortress of redemption).
This is different from shooting in which only one model gets to throw a grenade.
Lord Krungharr wrote: Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.
Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? That's really down to what you and your opponent decide. It's perfectly acceptable to assume the combatants on both sides have brought plenty of cutting tools, acidic disintegrators or naked ferocity to muscle their way through any wall so foolish as to block their path. Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this.
Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but is that even legal to deep-strike underneath terrain?
Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but is that even legal to deep-strike underneath terrain?
yep, "place one model anywhere on the table" pg 36
although you have to be able to stand up under it or mishap.
sirlynchmob wrote: No it doesn't. the skyshield is just the skyshield. The rules say nothing about under it, its just an open space under it.
...which can be moved through as difficult terrain, because the rules say that's how you get up onto the pad.
You get up onto the shield by making a difficult terrain test, there is no difficult terrain under the shield, its just an open space. You just count as moving through difficult terrain as you move onto or off from the shield.
you make it sound like the area under the shield is always treated like difficult terrain. but that is not the case.
sirlynchmob wrote: You get up onto the shield by making a difficult terrain test, there is no difficult terrain under the shield, its just an open space. You just count as moving through difficult terrain as you move onto or off from the shield.
Right. So when moving onto or off the shield, the area under it is treated as difficult terrain.
you make it sound like the area under the shield is always treated like difficult terrain. but that is not the case.
Lord Krungharr wrote: You CANNOT move up through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad, nor can you move down through it. Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.
You should really consider reading the rules for ruins again: Page 99,Walls, Doors, Ladders and Natural Thinking
Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? .... Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this. I underlined the relevant portion of the rules, and yes, according to RAW you may walk through the wall of ruined building. Same rules also allow one to move through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad.
Lord Krungharr wrote: You CANNOT move up through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad, nor can you move down through it. Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.
You should really consider reading the rules for ruins again: Page 99,Walls, Doors, Ladders and Natural Thinking
Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? .... Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this. I underlined the relevant portion of the rules, and yes, according to RAW you may walk through the wall of ruined building. Same rules also allow one to move through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad.
you cant make the claim that rules for ruins apply to non ruins. That is simply not the case at all.
40k-noob wrote: you cant make the claim that rules for ruins apply to non ruins. That is simply not the case at all.
He's not. He's contesting the claim that you can't walk through the walls in ruins, and pointing out that the ruins rules mention that being able to walk right through the terrain is the default for difficult terrain, not just for ruins. This is just a reminder, though, since the same thing is said in the difficult terrain rules.
sirlynchmob wrote: the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.
sirlynchmob wrote: the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.
Why?
The same reason I'll be attempting to make my opponent agree that my Lootas are AP2.
sirlynchmob wrote: the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.
Why?
mainly to be polite so everyone knows what is what for all the terrain.
what sort of game?
Pg 91, "before you start playing, it's always worth taking the time to talk to your opponent about the terrain you're using."
sirlynchmob wrote: the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.
Why?
mainly to be polite so everyone knows what is what for all the terrain.
what sort of game?
Pg 91, "before you start playing, it's always worth taking the time to talk to your opponent about the terrain you're using."
Impassable though, that's a bit harsh/one sided.
As the opponent I'd disagree and offer the counter that it's difficult terrain
I think the query is over why you would consider it to be impassable as the default position, given it is only difficult terrain and therefore is NOT impassable
nosferatu1001 wrote: I think the query is over why you would consider it to be impassable as the default position, given it is only difficult terrain and therefore is NOT impassable
Some people seem to have a hard time with the idea that tanks can get onto and off from it, so for some people they might want to just declare it impassible. if a tank moving onto it is so hard difficult to grasp, having it move through the platform must be really confusing
It's an option if anyone wants to play it that way, but like I said I wouldn't do it. That thing is scary enough with just 20 lootas on it
sirlynchmob wrote: the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.
Why?
The same reason I'll be attempting to make my opponent agree that my Lootas are AP2.
And the same reason I won't play someone with a Skyshield.
sirlynchmob wrote: the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.
Why?
The same reason I'll be attempting to make my opponent agree that my Lootas are AP2.
And the same reason I won't play someone with a Skyshield.
Then you are not doing it right. Learn to Improvise, Adapt and Overcome!
DeathReaper wrote: Point being, if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?
We discuss the terrain rules prior to the game, define and agree to how each piece of terrain will work in our game and follow the rules we've agreed upon, which tends to be a lot better than melting through everything and levitiating with tanks.
Lord Krungharr wrote: You CANNOT move up through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad, nor can you move down through it. Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.
You should really consider reading the rules for ruins again: Page 99,Walls, Doors, Ladders and Natural Thinking
Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? .... Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this. I underlined the relevant portion of the rules, and yes, according to RAW you may walk through the wall of ruined building. Same rules also allow one to move through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad.
you cant make the claim that rules for ruins apply to non ruins. That is simply not the case at all.
And I didn't. Did you read the underlined portion at all? Here is what it is referring to: page 90, "Moving Within Difficult Terrain"
Note that, as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls,closed doors and windows, and all similarly solid obstacles
See? I didn't make any claim that rules from ruins apply to non-ruins. Instead I made the claim that difficult terrain rules apply to ruins, because ruins are difficult terrain. And it is exactly same rule that allows model to move through walls of ruin as allows model to move through floor of Skyshield Landing Pad.
DeathReaper wrote: Point being, if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?
We discuss the terrain rules prior to the game, define and agree to how each piece of terrain will work in our game and follow the rules we've agreed upon, which tends to be a lot better than melting through everything and levitiating with tanks.
Note I was not talking about terrain, I was talking about this:
Crablezworth wrote: I prefer to only play people who aren't using fortifications/allies/random objectives.
No fortifications/allies/random objectives?
To that I say "if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?"
DeathReaper wrote: To that I say "if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?"
Pulling out the parts of the game that you don't like doesn't mean you're not playing by the rules otherwise. It's perfectly possible for someone to enjoy playing 40K and not enjoy having allies or random objectives in the game... Any of us who were playing before 6th edition have already done so in the past.
While I'm happy to use the full game (although would prefer not to use skyshields or battlements until GW fixes their rules) I can well understand why a lot of players aren't as keen on them.
As long as everyone's in agreement beforehand, then it's game. That's the fun of tabletop gaming, and kind of the point of 6th edition - it's meant to be flexible.
DeathReaper wrote: To that I say "if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?"
Pulling out the parts of the game that you don't like doesn't mean you're not playing by the rules otherwise. It's perfectly possible for someone to enjoy playing 40K and not enjoy having allies or random objectives in the game... Any of us who were playing before 6th edition have already done so in the past.
While I'm happy to use the full game (although would prefer not to use skyshields or battlements until GW fixes their rules) I can well understand why a lot of players aren't as keen on them.
I think this is part of the reason why the ONLY fortifications anyone in my group currently uses is the ADL (Gun Emplacement optional). So far the only people who insist on no Allies/Fortification/Random effects are the ones who are still trying to learn the basic 6th ed rules. And that makes perfect sense.
DeathReaper wrote: To that I say "if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?"
Pulling out the parts of the game that you don't like doesn't mean you're not playing by the rules otherwise. It's perfectly possible for someone to enjoy playing 40K and not enjoy having allies or random objectives in the game... Any of us who were playing before 6th edition have already done so in the past.
While I'm happy to use the full game (although would prefer not to use skyshields or battlements until GW fixes their rules) I can well understand why a lot of players aren't as keen on them.
I think this is part of the reason why the ONLY fortifications anyone in my group currently uses is the ADL (Gun Emplacement optional). So far the only people who insist on no Allies/Fortification/Random effects are the ones who are still trying to learn the basic 6th ed rules. And that makes perfect sense.
I generally don't use Allies unless my opponent does as well and/or knows in advance. I'm fine with some Fortifications, but thankfully no one I know actually uses them. As for random effects (warlord traits, mysterious terrain/objectives, etc), they tend to be useless more often than not and just slow down the game. Still fun to try out occasionally though (especially the terrain bit).
I've not tried any Fortifications yet. But we always do the Warlord and Random Terrain rolls (i mad markers to amke the game run a bit smoother) although 99% of the time it is just the woods we have on the table.
BRB, page 121: deploying within a fortification.
Any friendly unit can deploy within one of their army's fortifications, as long as it is also a building and wholly within their own deployment zone.
Pg 115: sky shield terrain type: unique.
So, RAW: you may not start the game deployed onto the landing pad as it is not a building.
Now, if you want to say it is a building so you can deploy on top of it then you will have to follow the normal building rules. Meaning only infantry and special characters may enter. This isn't overriden by the "unique" terrain type rules. Just combined with them so that your infantry and special characters have to take a difficult terrain test to enter/exit; however, vehicles can't go in.
