HELP!, I need to know if a Barrage weapon is fired at a unit underneath a Skyshield (whilst still being within LoS and range of weapon) does it also hit the models on top that are still effectively under the template?... As the rules for multiple levels are under 'Ruins' and the Skyshield is not a 'building' or 'ruin' but 'Unique' terrain that is 'Open' terrain on the top would all models under the template be hit and or do the models underneath gain a cover save from the blast... Also what cover save is given from the top furlings (closed), as the Skyshield has neither battlements, is not barricades, building or a defence line and once again is counted as 'Open' terrain on top... If it is obscuring cover could they get a +2 for going to ground...

If a model is under the Blast Marker then it is hit.

The rules for ruins do not come into play at the Skyshield is not a ruin.

You hit the models on top of and underneath the Skyshield.

RAW, DeathReaper has it.

HIWPI, I'd treat it like a ruin.

 Cheexsta wrote:
RAW, DeathReaper has it.

HIWPI, I'd treat it like a ruin.

Yes. I would really like to know what was going through their heads when they decided to label it terrain instead of ruins/building/structure.

Those are all Terrain.

the cover save is debated, but most seem to settle for a 4+ cover save from the walls. As it's not area terrain, you only get +1 for going to ground on the shield.

just hit the models on top of the shield, don't be that guy.

I'm just trying to work it all out fairly, I think it needs to be in a new FAQ... I'm convinced that you would choose either the top or the bottom for things like Battlecannons, some could argue a Mortar for example would not have the angle of fire and hence not be able to target lower models... But as I'm about to enter into a massive tournament, I wanna know if I'm going to be refused the right to shoot at the underneath models, can't just single certain weapons out based on how they could possibly fire...

Your best bet then is to check with the TO, as he's the only one who could tell you how he will rule it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the cover save is debated, but most seem to settle for a 4+ cover save from the walls. As it's not area terrain, you only get +1 for going to ground on the shield.

just hit the models on top of the shield, don't be that guy.

3+ cover save, because it's a fortification? That's how we play it.

HIWPI: you only hit the top lvl with barrage, as otherwise it would rate right up there with other silly things that are RAW but obviously not right.

Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
HIWPI: you only hit the top lvl with barrage, as otherwise it would rate right up there with other silly things that are RAW but obviously not right.

Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

No, but I don't think there's a RAW argument, only an RAI to be made here. We simply don't have enough rules to understand the skyshield.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

Cover from barrage is determined from the center of the marker. So yes, if you place the marker over the shyshield, models underneath would receive a cover save as the floor of the pad is between them and the center of the marker.

 insaniak wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

Cover from barrage is determined from the center of the marker. So yes, if you place the marker over the shyshield, models underneath would receive a cover save as the floor of the pad is between them and the center of the marker.

So the Wyvern unit dropping 12 blasts with re-rolls to wound and ignore cover should clear out that sky shield pretty quick?

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

Cover from barrage is determined from the center of the marker. So yes, if you place the marker over the shyshield, models underneath would receive a cover save as the floor of the pad is between them and the center of the marker.

So the Wyvern unit dropping 12 blasts with re-rolls to wound and ignore cover should clear out that sky shield pretty quick?

-Matt

No, since the sky shield gives a 4++.

 insaniak wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

Cover from barrage is determined from the center of the marker. So yes, if you place the marker over the shyshield, models underneath would receive a cover save as the floor of the pad is between them and the center of the marker.

if you place the marker over the skyshield, models under it would not be in LOS so no wounds would be allocated to it.

No matter what else, you either hit the top, or the bottom. wounds will not be allocated to both.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

Cover from barrage is determined from the center of the marker. So yes, if you place the marker over the shyshield, models underneath would receive a cover save as the floor of the pad is between them and the center of the marker.

if you place the marker over the skyshield, models under it would not be in LOS so no wounds would be allocated to it.

No matter what else, you either hit the top, or the bottom. wounds will not be allocated to both.

LoS has no impact on determining cover from a barrage.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

Cover from barrage is determined from the center of the marker. So yes, if you place the marker over the shyshield, models underneath would receive a cover save as the floor of the pad is between them and the center of the marker.

if you place the marker over the skyshield, models under it would not be in LOS so no wounds would be allocated to it.

No matter what else, you either hit the top, or the bottom. wounds will not be allocated to both.

LoS has no impact on determining cover from a barrage.

Out of site, if you can't draw LOS of site to the marker, you can't allocate wounds to them as the wound pool empties.

there is no way to wound models on the top and bottom of the skyshield with one marker.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Though is there an argument to be made that if models under itget hit like ones on it, then they get the 4++ as well?

Cover from barrage is determined from the center of the marker. So yes, if you place the marker over the shyshield, models underneath would receive a cover save as the floor of the pad is between them and the center of the marker.

if you place the marker over the skyshield, models under it would not be in LOS so no wounds would be allocated to it.

No matter what else, you either hit the top, or the bottom. wounds will not be allocated to both.

LoS has no impact on determining cover from a barrage.

Out of site, if you can't draw LOS of site to the marker, you can't allocate wounds to them as the wound pool empties.

there is no way to wound models on the top and bottom of the skyshield with one marker.

I hadn't thought of that. But this is true and might be why they never bothered to flesh out the rule.

In ruins, there are ruins where if the marker hits one level, models on a different level could still be under the marker and in LOS of the center hole. So they add the bit about only hitting the top level under the hole.

In other buildings and terrain. If LOS is blocked from the center hole, no wounds could be allocated. So you could only hit the upper level.

I hadn't thought about having to check LOS from the center hole and that solves the whole issue.

Except Barrage weapons do not need Line of Sight as they can fire indirectly.

Therefore you can wound models both on top of and under the Skyshield with a barrage weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Barrage weapons do not need Line of Sight as they can fire indirectly.

Therefore you can wound models both on top of and under the Skyshield with a barrage weapon.

Permission to fire != permission to allocate wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Barrage weapons do not need Line of Sight as they can fire indirectly.

Therefore you can wound models both on top of and under the Skyshield with a barrage weapon.

Permission to fire != permission to allocate wounds.

So the rule is useless?

No thanks.

I'll take the interpretation that allows a barrage to be fired at and kill guys in the target unit even if the unit is out of Line of Sight.

Otherwise things like Hive guard and the Tau missiles that do not need Line of Sight are useless when firing at targets out of Line of Sight s well, and why give them the ability to fire at a unit out of Line of Sight if you can not wound them, it is just wasted ink if that is the case.

If they can fire at a target unit out of line of sight they will be able to wound and kill models in the target unit that are out of Line of sight. That is the only way that provision is actually not wasted ink.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Barrage weapons do not need Line of Sight as they can fire indirectly.

Therefore you can wound models both on top of and under the Skyshield with a barrage weapon.

Permission to fire != permission to allocate wounds.

So the rule is useless?

No thanks.

I'll take the interpretation that allows a barrage to be fired at and kill guys in the target unit even if the unit is out of Line of Sight.

Otherwise things like Hive guard and the Tau missiles that do not need Line of Sight are useless when firing at targets out of Line of Sight s well, and why give them the ability to fire at a unit out of Line of Sight if you can not wound them, it is just wasted ink if that is the case.

If they can fire at a target unit out of line of sight they will be able to wound and kill models in the target unit that are out of Line of sight. That is the only way that provision is actually not wasted ink.

Their saying you can be out of LOS from the firing unit, because you use LOS from the center of the marker.

LOS from the marker allows things to be hit and wounded from the marker, not the firing unit which may be totally out of LOS.

barrage weapons don't need LOS to fire, but a blast marker is not a barrage weapon, it uses LOS to hit and wound.

This is what the rule is going for.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Barrage weapons do not need Line of Sight as they can fire indirectly.

Therefore you can wound models both on top of and under the Skyshield with a barrage weapon.

Permission to fire != permission to allocate wounds.

So the rule is useless?

No thanks.

I'll take the interpretation that allows a barrage to be fired at and kill guys in the target unit even if the unit is out of Line of Sight.

Otherwise things like Hive guard and the Tau missiles that do not need Line of Sight are useless when firing at targets out of Line of Sight s well, and why give them the ability to fire at a unit out of Line of Sight if you can not wound them, it is just wasted ink if that is the case.

If they can fire at a target unit out of line of sight they will be able to wound and kill models in the target unit that are out of Line of sight. That is the only way that provision is actually not wasted ink.

Not at all true. But we've had this debate before (and I thought you were on the opposite side before) so I'm going to ball this up and throw it into the giant bag of "I'll stop caring." Have a great day!

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Barrage weapons do not need Line of Sight as they can fire indirectly.

Therefore you can wound models both on top of and under the Skyshield with a barrage weapon.

Permission to fire != permission to allocate wounds.

So the rule is useless?

No thanks.

I'll take the interpretation that allows a barrage to be fired at and kill guys in the target unit even if the unit is out of Line of Sight.

Otherwise things like Hive guard and the Tau missiles that do not need Line of Sight are useless when firing at targets out of Line of Sight s well, and why give them the ability to fire at a unit out of Line of Sight if you can not wound them, it is just wasted ink if that is the case.

If they can fire at a target unit out of line of sight they will be able to wound and kill models in the target unit that are out of Line of sight. That is the only way that provision is actually not wasted ink.

You are confusing LOS required to fire, which barrage do not use, with LOS to wound.

Barrage does use LOS to wound, but with its own special rule.
LOS to wound is drawn from the center of the blast marker. If you can't draw LOS from the center of the marker a wound can't be allocated.

Now please demonstrate how you place the marker on top of the landing pad and draw LOS from the marker to models under the landing pad.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Now please demonstrate how you place the marker on top of the landing pad and draw LOS from the marker to models under the landing pad.

Well, you can model the hatches in the pad as open with ladders down


But yeah. Rule seems to be as described with no problems- no way to wound models on both top and bottom of the pad.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are confusing LOS required to fire, which barrage do not use, with LOS to wound.

I am not confusing anything.

If you do not need Line of Sight to target a unit with a blast marker with the barrage quality, but you still need Line of Sight to allocate wounds, then the rule that lets you target a unit out of Line of Sight is wasted ink.

All of the rules in the BRB do something. They do not write rules that do nothing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are confusing LOS required to fire, which barrage do not use, with LOS to wound.

I am not confusing anything.

If you do not need Line of Sight to target a unit with a blast marker with the barrage quality, but you still need Line of Sight to allocate wounds, then the rule that lets you target a unit out of Line of Sight is wasted ink.

All of the rules in the BRB do something. They do not write rules that do nothing.

and the shot comes from the center of the blast marker, instead of the firing model.

so all the rules for LOS and wound allocation apply.

Plus if you want to be picky, the models under the shield are out of range as well from the small blasts (1.5"). and almost always from even the large blast as it needs more than 2" just to get to the top of most models. so you might get one. but then you can't see it anyways.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are confusing LOS required to fire, which barrage do not use, with LOS to wound.

I am not confusing anything.

If you do not need Line of Sight to target a unit with a blast marker with the barrage quality, but you still need Line of Sight to allocate wounds, then the rule that lets you target a unit out of Line of Sight is wasted ink.

All of the rules in the BRB do something. They do not write rules that do nothing.

You're still getting it wrong.

You normally need LoS to target and fire a weapon. Barrage allows you to ignore this.

Wounding with barrage treats the direction of the shot as being from the center of the blast marker- so you measure LoS for wounding from it. If you can't see the model from the centre of the blast marker, you can't wound it.

Two distinct and different cases.

That interpretation breaks Tau missiles and Hive guard.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That interpretation breaks Tau missiles and Hive guard.

did they update the wording for the hive guard?

But either way saying barrages breaks them, that's just like saying because ork boys can't shoot models out of LOS, that interpretation breaks Tau missiles and Hive guard.

they are two totally different situations. barrages use the center hole for LOS, just like any other model uses it's "eyes" for LOS.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
Wounding with barrage treats the direction of the shot as being from the center of the blast marker- so you measure LoS for wounding from it. If you can't see the model from the centre of the blast marker, you can't wound it.

One simple question: how far above the surface of the table is the center of the blast marker? Please cite specific rules when answering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Plus if you want to be picky, the models under the shield are out of range as well from the small blasts (1.5"). and almost always from even the large blast as it needs more than 2" just to get to the top of most models. so you might get one. but then you can't see it anyways.

A blast marker is effectively a cylinder that covers everything underneath the initial circle. It is NOT a sphere that measures a radius from a single point. If the blast marker is sitting on top of the platform (or 10' above the table) it will cover everything underneath it all the way down to the surface of the table.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That interpretation breaks Tau missiles and Hive guard.

Not true.
Barrage even has a special rule that allows you to draw LoS from the center of the blast.
Can the center of the blast see through the floor of the Skyshield?

Yes, you can fire over there. Yes, you can allocate wounds over there because you're told to draw LoS from the center of the blast.

Cite permission to wound through terrain you cannot see through.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
Wounding with barrage treats the direction of the shot as being from the center of the blast marker- so you measure LoS for wounding from it. If you can't see the model from the centre of the blast marker, you can't wound it.

One simple question: how far above the surface of the table is the center of the blast marker? Please cite specific rules when answering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Plus if you want to be picky, the models under the shield are out of range as well from the small blasts (1.5"). and almost always from even the large blast as it needs more than 2" just to get to the top of most models. so you might get one. but then you can't see it anyways.

A blast marker is effectively a cylinder that covers everything underneath the initial circle. It is NOT a sphere that measures a radius from a single point. If the blast marker is sitting on top of the platform (or 10' above the table) it will cover everything underneath it all the way down to the surface of the table.

You mean everything it can see.

we still start with "get a good look" with no permission to ignore the normal wounding and LOS requirements.

so what do you do, keep lifting the marker til you can get a clear LOS over walls?

From the pictures we can see they rest the markers on top of the models to help get a really good look.

blasts, wound and save as normal. including OOS.
barrage use the rules for blasts, and use the center hole for wound allocation. ie still using wound and save as normal, including OOS.

I love the Skyshield. and all of the great debates it spawns. As best I can tell If you are targeting a unit on the upper level with a blast, that blast will not affect a unit below the solid floor. This does not effect Hiveguard because they don't use blast markers. if your opponent has the top level full as well as models hiding underneath then your game just got easier as a large part of his army is in a very concentrated area instead of spread out.

Speaking of the SSLP how do you deal with a Mawloc tunneling up below the SSLP?

Hive guard and smart missiles RAW wise are broken without any help from barrage rules.

They are broken because nothing tells you to ignore LOS for wounding.

Barrage rules have nothing in common with this as barrage tells you it does use LOS, but LOS is determined from the whole in the marker for wounding.

theunicorn wrote:
I love the Skyshield. and all of the great debates it spawns. As best I can tell If you are targeting a unit on the upper level with a blast, that blast will not affect a unit below the solid floor. This does not effect Hiveguard because they don't use blast markers. if your opponent has the top level full as well as models hiding underneath then your game just got easier as a large part of his army is in a very concentrated area instead of spread out.

Speaking of the SSLP how do you deal with a Mawloc tunneling up below the SSLP?

Any place a model cannot fit, it cannot be.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are confusing LOS required to fire, which barrage do not use, with LOS to wound.

I am not confusing anything.

If you do not need Line of Sight to target a unit with a blast marker with the barrage quality, but you still need Line of Sight to allocate wounds, then the rule that lets you target a unit out of Line of Sight is wasted ink.

All of the rules in the BRB do something. They do not write rules that do nothing.

Firng indirectly means you can lob a round at your target.

By your definition, you could have a thunderfire cannon in a building, with a ceiling over your head and shoot a target on the other side of the table.

No!

What it means is that you can fire an indirect weapon, from behind and obstacle. You don't need line of sight to fire a mortar in real life, but if you're shooting a mortar at a target on the first floor of a 3 story building, your impact is going to be the roof.

Unless you have a round set to penetrate a structure

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Firng indirectly means you can lob a round at your target.

By your definition, you could have a thunderfire cannon in a building, with a ceiling over your head and shoot a target on the other side of the table.

No!

Actually this is perfectly acceptable by the RAW, as long as the building that the TFC is in has a fire point that the TFC can use to draw Line of Sight to the target unit. (and the TFC is allowed somehow in a building).

Johnnytorrance wrote:
By your definition, you could have a thunderfire cannon in a building, with a ceiling over your head and shoot a target on the other side of the table.

Well, aside from the fact that the Thunderfire cannon can't be in a building, yes...

Johnnytorrance wrote:
What it means is that you can fire an indirect weapon, from behind and obstacle. You don't need line of sight to fire a mortar in real life, but if you're shooting a mortar at a target on the first floor of a 3 story building, your impact is going to be the roof.

Realism is irrelevant. Not only is this YMDC, where realism arguments are banned, the barrage rules in 40k are already stupid and unrealistic (complete lack of understanding of what indirect/direct fire and minimum ranges). What "should" happen in the "real" world matters about as much as the argument that a Tyranid MC should collapse under its own weight, all that matters is the rules for barrage weapons. And those rules clearly state that the "only hits models on one level" rule only applies to multi-level ruins. And the Skyshield is not a ruin of any kind.

May you may target a unit under a sky shield? Yes

Even if you can't see them? Yes

If the hole of the blast marker ends up on top of the sky shield will it hit the models below? In my OPINION, no you may not. This seems evident from the barrage rules. Calling the SSLP "terrain" or "ruins" should make no difference. If you have multi-level terrain (like a cavern in a hill side) your models would be immune from the indirect fire of a barrage unless it scatters to their level. But I'm a reasonable guy. Convince me.

 doktor_g wrote:
Convince me.

The rules say "multi-level ruin", not "multi-level terrain of any kind". There's really no debate here, the rules for only hitting models on one level very clearly only apply to multi-level ruins.

Nevermind. I just re-read the barrage rules. I'm no longer reasonable. Hah! The bolded text says only "level". Not "terrain". Not "ruin". Not "building". Not "fortification."


What I stated above is HIWPI, RAW and RAI.

Also the TFC to my knowledge doesn't have to have an open sky to fire. AFAIK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Peregrine. It gives "ruin" as an example of "structure". The bolded text is germain.

 doktor_g wrote:
Also the TFC to my knowledge doesn't have to have an open sky to fire. AFAIK.

What does this matter? Where is having an open sky to fire defined in the rules, and where is it needed?

In the example above the TFC in a building can fire if it has a fire point that can draw Line of Sight (And if somehow the TFC could be in the building in the first place).

Oh and it doesn't say multi level ruin. BRB pg 100.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok. Reaper, there is no limitation on a TFC going in a building. Not going to argue so that's it. Gotta stop coming to this forum.

 doktor_g wrote:
Oh and it doesn't say multi level ruin. BRB pg 100.

Yes it does, right there on page 100... It is literally the first words in the first graph.

"Multi-level ruins require certain conventions and clarifications to ensure that Template, Blast or Large Blast weapons behave in a consistent fashion, and to keep the game moving." (100)

The section on page 100 it talking about ruins and giving additional rules for when you are firing Template, Blast or large Blast weapons at models in a ruin.

You all also forgot the other unit that can target things it can't see but really has no permission to wound them. The Gk Purg squad. Someone did try and tell that they couldn't wound anything they couldn't see and I just looked at them and continued on. They dropped it. I guess they were testing the waters for weakness.

 Peregrine wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
What it means is that you can fire an indirect weapon, from behind and obstacle. You don't need line of sight to fire a mortar in real life, but if you're shooting a mortar at a target on the first floor of a 3 story building, your impact is going to be the roof.

Realism is irrelevant. Not only is this YMDC, where realism arguments are banned, the barrage rules in 40k are already stupid and unrealistic (complete lack of understanding of what indirect/direct fire and minimum ranges). What "should" happen in the "real" world matters about as much as the argument that a Tyranid MC should collapse under its own weight, all that matters is the rules for barrage weapons. And those rules clearly state that the "only hits models on one level" rule only applies to multi-level ruins. And the Skyshield is not a ruin of any kind.

Ok, now draw line of sight from models on one level where the marker impacts to models on another level to allocate the wounds. If LOS cant be drawn, the wound pool empties.

 doktor_g wrote:

Ok. Reaper, there is no limitation on a TFC going in a building. Not going to argue so that's it. Gotta stop coming to this forum.

Buildings follow the same embarking rules as vehicles. Only infantry can enter. The TFC is not infantry.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ok, now draw line of sight from models on one level where the marker impacts to models on another level to allocate the wounds. If LOS cant be drawn, the wound pool empties.

There is no such thing as a "level where the marker impacts" unless you're dealing with multi-level ruins (which the Skyshield is not).

theunicorn wrote:
I love the Skyshield. and all of the great debates it spawns. As best I can tell If you are targeting a unit on the upper level with a blast, that blast will not affect a unit below the solid floor. This does not effect Hiveguard because they don't use blast markers. if your opponent has the top level full as well as models hiding underneath then your game just got easier as a large part of his army is in a very concentrated area instead of spread out.

Speaking of the SSLP how do you deal with a Mawloc tunneling up below the SSLP?

step 1. forget below, tunnel onto the skyshield.
step 2. lots of chaos and dead models.
step 3. profit

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ok, now draw line of sight from models on one level where the marker impacts to models on another level to allocate the wounds. If LOS cant be drawn, the wound pool empties.

There is no such thing as a "level where the marker impacts" unless you're dealing with multi-level ruins (which the Skyshield is not).

Forget the ruins.

You are instructed to use LOS from the center of the marker. So please demonstrate how you place the blast marker so that you have LOS from the center of it and hit models on both floors of a landing pad....

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ok, now draw line of sight from models on one level where the marker impacts to models on another level to allocate the wounds. If LOS cant be drawn, the wound pool empties.

There is no such thing as a "level where the marker impacts" unless you're dealing with multi-level ruins (which the Skyshield is not).

Forget the ruins.

You are instructed to use LOS from the center of the marker. So please demonstrate how you place the blast marker so that you have LOS from the center of it and hit models on both floors of a landing pad....

X-ray vision.

My personal take on this is to decide based on the weapon itself. If it's artillery style weapons that fire up and come crashing down from the sky, then I would count it as a ruin, if it's more of a direct fire gun then I treat it accordingly.

Rules as they make the most sense irl even though its a ridiculous game.

Ratmtmsirletiarg. Its a new thing

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are instructed to use LOS from the center of the marker. So please demonstrate how you place the blast marker so that you have LOS from the center of it and hit models on both floors of a landing pad....

I will once you can tell me how high off the table the center of the marker is, how you determine that location, and which rules you are using to provide this answer.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are instructed to use LOS from the center of the marker. So please demonstrate how you place the blast marker so that you have LOS from the center of it and hit models on both floors of a landing pad....

I will once you can tell me how high off the table the center of the marker is, how you determine that location, and which rules you are using to provide this answer.

so you're saying, because you don't know how high to place the marker, it can see through solid objects?

Or are you trying to make a case that you can place the marker 2 feet above the table so if you scatter 12" you can move 12" downward slightly in the direction of the arrow so you never miss?

Do you need some more straws?

In the end, where you and your opponent agree the blast marker is, LOS is from that point. and using the normal rules for wounding, if you can't see it, you can't wound it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blast rules:

Due to parallax you can only hold the blast marker just high enough so the center hole is over the base of the target model. But not so high as the center hole covers more than one model, nor exceeded the range of the weapon firing the blast.

Now how do you draw LOS through a opaque barrier?

I'm glad someone used the word parallax in the context of blast markers other than me. Thanks lynch. You've reaffirmed my high opinion of wargamers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Insaniak: Regarding buildings and the TFC: thanks for pointing that out. BRB pg93


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ugh.... I can't stay away....

@Peregrine: so you think that Barrages ignore "structures" lying over targeted models? Seems to me it would extend to caverns, buildings, void shields (blatant trolling - you should ignore), bunkers, canvas netting, etc. The BRB says "structures" not just ruins.

In the end our local TO has decided to follow the Australian Tournament Championship rules, Barrage only hits models on top, Ordinance targets models either on top or bottom, but not both... The Furlings offer a 4+ cover when the Skyshield is Furled, which only offers +1 when going to ground (Barricade)...
The models underneath do not receive the 4++ as they are not within the top of the Skyshield which is what offers the invunerable save... It is 'open' terrain so models on top would only receive the 4++...

sirlynchmob wrote:
so you're saying, because you don't know how high to place the marker, it can see through solid objects?

Or are you trying to make a case that you can place the marker 2 feet above the table so if you scatter 12" you can move 12" downward slightly in the direction of the arrow so you never miss?

No, my point is that trying to resolve a blast weapon in 3d is impossible because GW wrote the rules on the assumption that they only consider 2d distance/overlapping. The only way to make the rules function in any sensible way is to treat the blast template as an infinite-height cylinder, and draw cover LOS from its infinite-length axis. Therefore, assuming no other cover involved, both the models on the top and the models on the bottom would be in open terrain relative to the template.

In the end, where you and your opponent agree the blast marker is, LOS is from that point. and using the normal rules for wounding, if you can't see it, you can't wound it.

Please cite a rule allowing you and your opponent to agree on how high above the table it is, which would imply that you have a choice of heights available.

Due to parallax you can only hold the blast marker just high enough so the center hole is over the base of the target model. But not so high as the center hole covers more than one model, nor exceeded the range of the weapon firing the blast.

Could you cite a page number for this rule? I'm having trouble finding it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
The BRB says "structures" not just ruins.

Yes, it says "structure" as a bit of fluff to describe what happens when a barrage weapon hits a ruin. However these rules very clearly state that they only apply when targeting models in multi-level ruins, and cease to apply if the template lands over non-ruin terrain instead.

Well being a permissive rule set. I would think it is you that needs to provide a page number saying barrages pass through soilid structures.

Yeah I agree, templates are not 3d, they just hit anything underneath, the template is supposed to be held over the models, not placed onto them, onto the table etc... Its incredibly inaccurate but dem the rules...

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Well being a permissive rule set. I would think it is you that needs to provide a page number saying barrages pass through soilid structures.

As I said, the rules do not function if you try to resolve them in 3d. For example, I can hold the template 10' above the table so that your ADL doesn't give you any cover, even though the template landed on the opposite side of it. Or if the template lands in a small crack in the table then everyone might be out of LOS entirely even though they're standing in open terrain except for that tiny crack. Since these situations are obviously absurd the only way to deal with it is to resolve the template in 2d like GW seems to have intended. And once you've made that assumption you need to provide some rules for solid structures (other than multi-level ruins) having any concept of levels, or allowing the blast template to come from above or below a model.

major_payne wrote:
In the end our local TO has decided to follow the Australian Tournament Championship rules, Barrage only hits models on top, Ordinance targets models either on top or bottom, but not both... The Furlings offer a 4+ cover when the Skyshield is Furled, which only offers +1 when going to ground (Barricade)...
The models underneath do not receive the 4++ as they are not within the top of the Skyshield which is what offers the invunerable save... It is 'open' terrain so models on top would only receive the 4++...

canyou give me a web reference to these... would be interesting to read and google turned up naught.. should be a good read

You do realize that 2D would only be hitting one level. 3D for multiple levels.

A circle vs a sphere or cylinder.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You do realize that 2D would only be hitting one level. 3D for multiple levels.

2d as in you place the template, look down from above, and ignore all height. Everything that is under the template takes the hits.

So the hole would be above the skyshield and below it at the same time?

 Nilok wrote:
So the hole would be above the skyshield and below it at the same time?

No, the marker is above the skyshield, and you hit everything underneath the marker.

Did they remove the FAQ on Blasts and Line of Sight? It gives ALL blasts the ability to wound models out of LOS of the firing unit, meaning it hits models above and below the SSLP....

(page 1, bottom right of the september 2013 BRB FAQ - not been able to see if the "new" FAQs are new or not yet...)

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So the hole would be above the skyshield and below it at the same time?

No, the marker is above the skyshield, and you hit everything underneath the marker.

And you still can't draw line of site from the hole to the models underneath the sky shield, and no permission is given to penetrate solid objects.

There is no requirement in the rules to draw LOS from the blast marker.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So the hole would be above the skyshield and below it at the same time?

No, the marker is above the skyshield, and you hit everything underneath the marker.

And you still can't draw line of site from the hole to the models underneath the sky shield, and no permission is given to penetrate solid objects.

You do not need to draw LOS from the blast marker to models underneath; you are simply required to count the models underneath the marker.

Assuming no change to the page 33 FAQ update you can then always allocate wounds from blasts, even out of line of sight.

AusYenLoWang: sorry dude, got no idea where he is referencing it from... I just posted the question as we are having our State tournament here in Tassie this August, its gunna hopefully be a hoot, 2500pts, Double force org, 0-1 Fort, 0-1 LoW, 1 ally (Excluding Supplements), No FW lists (FW Approved vehicles allowed)... 5 games over 2 days... The guy I asked is the organiser, also in the Tasmanian ATC team...

Turning this thread back again, targets under Skyshield would get 4+ cover against hits on the top. Why skyshield, caves etc., but not ruins?

Is the answer because GW believes in common sense and in rules arguments common sense has no place?

I urge you to advice me what the rules say about moving my models as our games can't otherwise progress. Bah.

+1 vote for hitting the models on top not both. but theres always TFG whos gotta try to bend and make rules only make sense to themselves.

Common sense would be nice but its rare now an days.

The RAW is clear - you hit every model underneath it. You can then wound every model, as LOS is not needed for ANY blast.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the sky shield is not a multi level ruin, so doesn't have "level" at all?

So does this mean it has no "underneath" or "on top" from a rules perspective?

Just trying to understand the argument

Indeed, it is not a ruin, therefore you fall back ont eh Blast rules - ANYTHYING under the marker is hit.

No idea where this nonsense idea of drawing "LOS" from a marker comes from in general....

 Peregrine wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
so you're saying, because you don't know how high to place the marker, it can see through solid objects?

Or are you trying to make a case that you can place the marker 2 feet above the table so if you scatter 12" you can move 12" downward slightly in the direction of the arrow so you never miss?

No, my point is that trying to resolve a blast weapon in 3d is impossible because GW wrote the rules on the assumption that they only consider 2d distance/overlapping. The only way to make the rules function in any sensible way is to treat the blast template as an infinite-height cylinder, and draw cover LOS from its infinite-length axis. Therefore, assuming no other cover involved, both the models on the top and the models on the bottom would be in open terrain relative to the template.

In the end, where you and your opponent agree the blast marker is, LOS is from that point. and using the normal rules for wounding, if you can't see it, you can't wound it.

Please cite a rule allowing you and your opponent to agree on how high above the table it is, which would imply that you have a choice of heights available.

Due to parallax you can only hold the blast marker just high enough so the center hole is over the base of the target model. But not so high as the center hole covers more than one model, nor exceeded the range of the weapon firing the blast.

Could you cite a page number for this rule? I'm having trouble finding it.

ok, so you're arguing HIWPI, and not RAW.

pg 33 blasts, second paragraph.

And barrage, as was the topic the OP picked, we assume the shot is coming from the center of the marker and like blasts we follow the normal rules for wounding. Which include the rules for out of site.

And like blasts, once the final position has been determined, take a good look at it from above. so what you can see under the marker is what is hit.

And like the pictures show us, you should put the marker on top of the models, I see no mention of this infinite cylinder you've imagined. All these rules point to a very clear RAW: if you can't see it, you can't wound it.

But blasts are exempt from the specific los rules your mentioning, it sounds like they are saying that because the shield isn't a multi ruin that there is no underneath so you ignore them being underneath, is that the general gyst?

major_payne wrote:
AusYenLoWang: sorry dude, got no idea where he is referencing it from... I just posted the question as we are having our State tournament here in Tassie this August, its gunna hopefully be a hoot, 2500pts, Double force org, 0-1 Fort, 0-1 LoW, 1 ally (Excluding Supplements), No FW lists (FW Approved vehicles allowed)... 5 games over 2 days... The guy I asked is the organiser, also in the Tasmanian ATC team...

the only reason i asked is i have never ever heard of such a thing, its the first iv even seen it come up on Dakka. he may be a TO thats using his own rules etc, that they have used before but i havent heard of a unified set of tourney rules in australia... hell even the yanks dont have one (and of all people youd expect them to).

"out of sight", not site.

From FAQ 1.5
Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

So the CLEAR RAW is that EVERY model under the blast marker is hit, as the SSLP is not a Ruin.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"out of sight", not site.

From FAQ 1.5
Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

So the CLEAR RAW is that EVERY model under the blast marker is hit, as the SSLP is not a Ruin.

it's clear RAW that only the models you can see under the marker are hit.

 Formosa wrote:
But blasts are exempt from the specific los rules your mentioning, it sounds like they are saying that because the shield isn't a multi ruin that there is no underneath so you ignore them being underneath, is that the general gyst?

I think the general gist is people are a) forgetting the over a year old FAQ covering Blasts and allocating out of LOS (always allowed) and b) seem to have this crazy notion that you have to draw LOS from the blast to the model. You dont. ANY model underneath is hit, unless it is a ruin, and therefore for a SSLP ANY model can be hit and subsequently wounded AND have a wound allocated to it.

HIWPI, only the models on top. This is mainly due to ease and to minimize arguments, as otherwise, you would have to move the entire landing pad, just too count how many models underneath are covered, and then both players will start arguing over the location of the market, and the fact that moving the pad knocked a couple of models and they are (not) where they were before, etc.

Lol. Permissive.

@Peregrine: Steel and I are in agreement. The height doesn't matter as it is (as you said I think) a cylindrical projection onto the models as evidenced by the photo diagram(s) on pg 100. Correcting for observer's parallax, it would be best to have the blast project like a laser (TRADEMARKED. lol.). Now, where the center hole scatter lands dictates to which level the barrage scatters (or doesn't). Since, I've only been playing for 2 editions you may shoot down my hypothesis, but I seem to remember these photos and maybe similar wording in 5th. In my re-read, I see your point about your and the others interpretations of the blasts / barrages and how you think it applies to only ruins and not to other forms of overhead terrain like a cavern, bridge, or SSLP. The photos, and text all show multilevel ruins. Therefore I will concede that the rules as written are ambiguous when it comes to overhead structures and barrages. It is my opinion that it was a lack of 3D imagination on the part of GW's writers to clarify the rule (or at least make it generic). In fact, I think may be a copy/paste from 5th, where they (if my recollection is correct) didn't have forts or buildings. So again, HIWPI is "no" for barrage. I think RAI is clear, at least to me that this is how it should work. RAW is a roll-off. Most TOs, I suspect would play all overhead terrain like YOU would a ruin. That is, barrages cannot hit models placed one blast radius underneath ANY overhead structure, be it a building, fort, bridge, cavern or SSLP. With your well argued point though, I'd roll-off even if the TO ruled in my favor.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
But blasts are exempt from the specific los rules your mentioning, it sounds like they are saying that because the shield isn't a multi ruin that there is no underneath so you ignore them being underneath, is that the general gyst?

I think the general gist is people are a) forgetting the over a year old FAQ covering Blasts and allocating out of LOS (always allowed) and b) seem to have this crazy notion that you have to draw LOS from the blast to the model. You dont. ANY model underneath is hit, unless it is a ruin, and therefore for a SSLP ANY model can be hit and subsequently wounded AND have a wound allocated to it.

Then how do you work out cover saves for barrage weapons? clearly we are using the center of the marker to see if the target model is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer. ie true LOS. As we are using the center of the marker, it is physically at one fixed point, and it is from there we work everything out.

And that FAQ was for blasts, not barrages as we can see:
Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

do barrage weapons inflict wounds to the closest model? nope, they use the center of the hole for LOS, determining cover, allocating wounds, and are thus also bound by the normal rule for wounding out of sight.

if there are no models visible at all, the wound pool empties. Like the pictures illustrate, and the rules dictate, you place the marker psychically on the unit, and the models immediately under it are hit. just those between it and the ground, there is no mention anywhere of this infinite cylinder.

Just because some people have this crazy notion we're playing abstract 40k, doesn't mean a weapon with a 48" range and targets a unit 47" away, now it can hit a infinite amount of models just because some are in a tunnel, some are on the ground, and some are on a skyshield, and even more are on a hill that overhangs the shield. The blast marker is a psychical thing, it is someplace, it is not a infinite cylinder.

but if a model is not visible does it even exist? if you're going for abstract 40k, then lets get philosophical with it.

Sigh. Page 34, first paragraph about Barrage. Note that it specifies that barrage use the rules for blasts with specific exceptions. The FAQ is not listed as an exception.

Argument voided, again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. Page 34, first paragraph about Barrage. Note that it specifies that barrage use the rules for blasts with specific exceptions. The FAQ is not listed as an exception.

Argument voided, again.

So barrages wound get allocated to the closest model from the attacking unit? and not closest to the center of the marker?

once again, you're HIWPI is creating illegal and illogical game states.

once again, your argument should be marked HIWPI as it has no RAW support.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"out of sight", not site.

From FAQ 1.5
Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

So the CLEAR RAW is that EVERY model under the blast marker is hit, as the SSLP is not a Ruin.

That isn't what that says. It says that wounds can be allocated even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit. It isn't saying that it can assign wounds to models outside of the blast's LoS as measured from the hole, only if it lands behind a wall that the attacking unit can't see through.

In the context of the FaQ about Line of Sight, The attacking unit = The blast's LoS as measured from the hole as the hole is where the shot comes from with barrage.

 Nilok wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"out of sight", not site.

From FAQ 1.5
Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

So the CLEAR RAW is that EVERY model under the blast marker is hit, as the SSLP is not a Ruin.

That isn't what that says. It says that wounds can be allocated even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit. It isn't saying that it can assign wounds to models outside of the blast's LoS as measured from the hole, only if it lands behind a wall that the attacking unit can't see through.

Except you're wrong, as you're told which exceptions to follow, and where you allocate wounds IS one. So you can allocate wounds out of line of sight of the central hole

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the context of the FaQ about Line of Sight, The attacking unit = The blast's LoS as measured from the hole as the hole is where the shot comes from with barrage.

I think you are misreading the FAQ unless you are arguing that the hole is a model.

"...even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit."

who here would argue that if you made a piece of scenery that was similar to a ruin, but clearly in a decent state of repair so not a ruin, you'd ignore the rules?

the argument that you can hit the models under the skyshield hangs on a single word in the entire rules system for barrage weapons; Ruins.
You'd be the ones who argue that ignores cover has no effect shooting vehicles, as they have the specific term 'Wounds', or that a soul-grinder doesn't get a save as invulnerable saves are taken against 'Wounds', right?

Barrage weapons hit the level they land on - not the one above, not the one below. bomb falls down, bomb explodes. bomb doesn't phase through the floor and hit people it can't see.

exact phrasing from page 34 of the rulebook:

"...and when determining wound allocation, ALWAYS assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, INSTEAD of from the firing model".

the emphasis was put in by me, of course.

so, would you argue, sir, that, in the exact same way, a model on top of a skyshield landing pad can shoot a model underneath it? I'd say no, as he cannot see it. to emphasise this, We'll turn to page 16, under the heading "Out of Sight":

"If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds CANNOT be allocated to it..."

now that's still slightly ambiguous, as it doesn't mention the term "line of sight", just "can see". so if we roll back to page 8...

"Line of sight determines what a model can see..."

ah, here we go. so a unit with LOS can therefore "see" its target. instead of using the units LOS, we assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast, so we measure LOS from there instead. we cannot draw LOS from the centre of the blast to the models underneath, therefore it cannot "see" the models underneath, therefore wounds cannot be allocated to them.


now, if I were to get very cruel, and take umbridge at this blatant attempt to squeeze through a loophole in the rules, I'd go a step further:

"For one model to have LOS to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the targets body"

blasts don't have eyes - your barrage hits nothing.

 Nilok wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the context of the FaQ about Line of Sight, The attacking unit = The blast's LoS as measured from the hole as the hole is where the shot comes from with barrage.

I think you are misreading the FAQ unless you are arguing that the hole is a model.

"...even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit."

In a barrage the shot comes from where?

The center of the hole?

Where do shots normally come from, models, the rule equates the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
Barrage weapons hit the level of the ruin they land on - not the one above, not the one below. bomb falls down, bomb explodes. bomb doesn't phase through the floor and hit people it can't see.

Fixed that for you with the red text.

Also, please stop trying to use real world examples. They have no bearing on the 40K ruleset.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Some Bloke,
It all comes down to the terrain type on the pieces profile, and nothing more.

This is because there is no criteria to measure the terrain against, there is no list informing us how to determine of X is a Ruin or some sort of Building for example. Instead of a criteria used to determine these elements we are presented within the profile, using a field which outright tells us what Rules the piece follows. The piece could have every floor collapsing in on itself, all windows shattered out and even a whole wall completely gone from past damage but if the profile says it is a building... then we use the Building rule-set for it and not the Ruins. Same for your shining ruin example, it can look like a freshly fabricated Building but if we are told it is Ruins by the profile then it is Ruins.

That is part of the problem with 'Terrain Type: Unique' pieces that have multiple floors, like the sky-shield, as they need to state that we treat the individual floors in the same way as different floors in a Ruin before we are legally allowed to do so.

You are extrapolating examples that are not in the FAQ. Can you please give me the rules that support your argument.

Is the blast an attacking unit?
Is the hole a unit?
If either of these are not true, your example dose not work.

If you have models on top of a bastion and models on the ground near the base of the bastion, the blast hits the model on the top, the bastion itself, and the models on the ground as long as the blast is over them, even if it 10" up.

So some are arguing that if there is a piece of terrain over the heads of the models on the ground, blocking their view from the top of the bastion, they are not hit. This is wrong. There is no such thing as vertical cover from a blast or barrage. It's like peregrine says "an infinite cylinder".

 Nilok wrote:
You are extrapolating examples that are not in the FAQ. Can you please give me the rules that support your argument.

Is the blast an attacking unit?
Is the hole a unit?
If either of these are not true, your example dose not work.

The hole is equated to the firing unit because that is where we are told the shot comes from.

This is exactly why anytime you play with or against someone with the Skyshield, you should sit down and hash out all the rules about it. It is woefully addressed.

RAW there is nothing stopping the attacker from targeting the unit under the SS and hitting with Barrage. However, you will have to remove the SS in order to place the marker over the target unit.

HIWPI. Barrage only hits the top as ruins are the closest comparable terrain feature with levels to them.

So far emphasis has been placed on LoS, the main reason I posed this question is as follows, A tank sits on a Skyshield, a unit of men underneath, in the distance is an enemy tank, which has LoS to both units from afar (say on a hill), it fires and the blast covers both models, does it hit both... Both are under the template and within the models LoS, weapon range etc etc... The fact is it would be impossible to try and work out how many models are hit, because when you remove the Skyshield you would need to replace the marker to determine who it hits on the lower level, I just think this has major issues due to bad rules editing (should be title multi level structures, not under 'Ruins' and also a lazy/faulty building type and description)... 'Unique' is GW's way of saying sort it out amongst yourselves...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
You are extrapolating examples that are not in the FAQ. Can you please give me the rules that support your argument.

Is the blast an attacking unit?
Is the hole a unit?
If either of these are not true, your example dose not work.

The hole is equated to the firing unit because that is where we are told the shot comes from.

So where is Night Fighting measured from?

 deviantduck wrote:
If you have models on top of a bastion and models on the ground near the base of the bastion, the blast hits the model on the top, the bastion itself, and the models on the ground as long as the blast is over them, even if it 10" up.

So some are arguing that if there is a piece of terrain over the heads of the models on the ground, blocking their view from the top of the bastion, they are not hit. This is wrong. There is no such thing as vertical cover from a blast or barrage. It's like peregrine says "an infinite cylinder".

And where is the center of a infinite cylinder? If you have a model on a bastion and one on the ground, which one is closest to the center? Clearly this infinite cylinder is demonstrably wrong, as a infinite cylinder has no center, you have no place to to determine where the shot is coming from.

if the hole has to be within the weapons maximum range, how do you explain the hole being an infinite distance away? Where is this infinite cylinder explained in the rules? As the hole extends a infinite distance away, it's clearly beyond the tables bottom edge and thus misses.

why are you ignoring "take a good look at it from above" ie only the models you can see under the template are hit.

 some bloke wrote:
who here would argue that if you made a piece of scenery that was similar to a ruin, but clearly in a decent state of repair so not a ruin, you'd ignore the rules?

If you and your opponent agree to treat that terrain piece as a ruin, then it is a ruin.

The thing is, the Fortifications in the rulebook have predefined types. The reason people are saying the Skyshield isn't treated as a ruin is that it isn't a ruin.

blasts don't have eyes - your barrage hits nothing.

As has been pointed out multiple times so far, LOS is not required for casualty removal from Blasts.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
If you have models on top of a bastion and models on the ground near the base of the bastion, the blast hits the model on the top, the bastion itself, and the models on the ground as long as the blast is over them, even if it 10" up.

So some are arguing that if there is a piece of terrain over the heads of the models on the ground, blocking their view from the top of the bastion, they are not hit. This is wrong. There is no such thing as vertical cover from a blast or barrage. It's like peregrine says "an infinite cylinder".

And where is the center of a infinite cylinder? If you have a model on a bastion and one on the ground, which one is closest to the center? Clearly this infinite cylinder is demonstrably wrong, as a infinite cylinder has no center, you have no place to to determine where the shot is coming from.

if the hole has to be within the weapons maximum range, how do you explain the hole being an infinite distance away? Where is this infinite cylinder explained in the rules? As the hole extends a infinite distance away, it's clearly beyond the tables bottom edge and thus misses.

why are you ignoring "take a good look at it from above" ie only the models you can see under the template are hit.

there is no measurement from the blast marker to the firing unit. range is firing unit to target unit. the blast isn't involved, since we all know blasts can of course scatter out of max range and still wound.
however, that wasn't my point. the point is there is no 3d height when looking under the blast marker. whether the template is on top of the models head or 2 feet above the table, everything under it is hit, even if it is on different levels (with the exception of multilevel ruins.)

 deviantduck wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
If you have models on top of a bastion and models on the ground near the base of the bastion, the blast hits the model on the top, the bastion itself, and the models on the ground as long as the blast is over them, even if it 10" up.

So some are arguing that if there is a piece of terrain over the heads of the models on the ground, blocking their view from the top of the bastion, they are not hit. This is wrong. There is no such thing as vertical cover from a blast or barrage. It's like peregrine says "an infinite cylinder".

And where is the center of a infinite cylinder? If you have a model on a bastion and one on the ground, which one is closest to the center? Clearly this infinite cylinder is demonstrably wrong, as a infinite cylinder has no center, you have no place to to determine where the shot is coming from.

if the hole has to be within the weapons maximum range, how do you explain the hole being an infinite distance away? Where is this infinite cylinder explained in the rules? As the hole extends a infinite distance away, it's clearly beyond the tables bottom edge and thus misses.

why are you ignoring "take a good look at it from above" ie only the models you can see under the template are hit.

there is no measurement from the blast marker to the firing unit. range is firing unit to target unit. the blast isn't involved, since we all know blasts can of course scatter out of max range and still wound.
however, that wasn't my point. the point is there is no 3d height when looking under the blast marker. whether the template is on top of the models head or 2 feet above the table, everything under it is hit, even if it is on different levels (with the exception of multilevel ruins.)

Citation needed for that one. what pg is that rule on the explains all of this?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
You are extrapolating examples that are not in the FAQ. Can you please give me the rules that support your argument.

Is the blast an attacking unit?
Is the hole a unit?
If either of these are not true, your example dose not work.

The hole is equated to the firing unit because that is where we are told the shot comes from.

So where is Night Fighting measured from?

Since the rules equate the firing unit with the center of the hole, the center of the hole.

This is because you use the center of the blast marker to determine cover saves, Giving the unit stealth or shrouded is a part of determining what cover save the unit has.

That does not matter though "As has been pointed out multiple times so far, LOS is not required for casualty removal from Blasts." (insaniak)

 Nilok wrote:
You are extrapolating examples that are not in the FAQ. Can you please give me the rules that support your argument.

Is the blast an attacking unit?
Is the hole a unit?
If either of these are not true, your example dose not work.

Incorrect. As already stated, barrage sets out when it does not follow blast rules, and what rules you instead follow. You are told to use the centre of the blast instead of measuring from the attacking unit, meaning the two are equated for this purpose. The FAQ still applies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Since the rules equate the firing unit with the center of the hole, the center of the hole.

This is because you use the center of the blast marker to determine cover saves, Giving the unit stealth or shrouded is a part of determining what cover save the unit has.

That does not matter though "As has been pointed out multiple times so far, LOS is not required for casualty removal from Blasts." (insaniak)

everything you just wrote here is wrong.

Show where the center of the blast marker is equated to the firing unit. it's not, you use the center instead of the model. The center is not a model, nor part of the unit, and you should know better.

Please read "determining cover saves" pg 18 and show where stealth or shrouded is mentioned at all?

LOS does matter as it has been pointed out multiple times so far.

For normal blasts they do indeed have a cylinder with no height taken into account.

For barrage its still a cylinder only height is taken into account.

It can only hit one level.

Ruins are specifically mentioned, but thats only because ruins are the only terrain defined in the BRB that have levels.

Its up to players to determine if Unusual terrain also has levels or not.

Pretty obviously skyshield has levels that block barrage.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Ruins are specifically mentioned, but thats only because ruins are the only terrain defined in the BRB that have levels.

You have that backwards, though. Yes, Ruins are specifically mentioned in the section dealing with levels... because the section dealing with levels is the rules section for Ruins.


No other terrain is affected by those rules.

Too late for me to read the whole thread, but for the Skyshield, I play WYSIWIG, and to me and everyone else with eyeballs, it looks like it has a level that is 3" above the ground. That level counts as open terrain, and provides a 4+ invul save vs shooting attacks, not a cover save unless the shot comes from outside the wall, in which case I'd say it's a 4+ cover save (of course Barrage comes from the hole in the blast).

If said blasts target units under the Skyshield, the firer has chosen the ground level and it would not hit those actually on the Pad.

WYSIWIG is in the BRB, and I don't see how one could say dudes which are clearly on 2 different levels get hit by the blast simultaneously.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
WYSIWIG is in the BRB, and I don't see how one could say dudes which are clearly on 2 different levels get hit by the blast simultaneously.

Even though the process for blasts just tells you to place the marker over the top and hit anything udner it?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Since the rules equate the firing unit with the center of the hole, the center of the hole.

This is because you use the center of the blast marker to determine cover saves, Giving the unit stealth or shrouded is a part of determining what cover save the unit has.

That does not matter though "As has been pointed out multiple times so far, LOS is not required for casualty removal from Blasts." (insaniak)

everything you just wrote here is wrong.

Show where the center of the blast marker is equated to the firing unit. it's not, you use the center instead of the model. The center is not a model, nor part of the unit, and you should know better.

Please read "determining cover saves" pg 18 and show where stealth or shrouded is mentioned at all?

LOS does matter as it has been pointed out multiple times so far.

Apart from the FAQ and rules on page 34 proving you wrong, of course.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
WYSIWIG is in the BRB, and I don't see how one could say dudes which are clearly on 2 different levels get hit by the blast simultaneously.

Even though the process for blasts just tells you to place the marker over the top and hit anything udner it?

Ok, so hold the marker over the pad like instructed and look down.

How many models can you see under the landing pad.

The answer is none.... and thats how many you hit.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The answer is none.... and thats how many you hit.

By your standards opaque blast markers would never be able to hit anything because you can't see any models through them. Fortunately this "how many models do you see" rule is one you've invented, not one that is in the actual rules of 40k. The real rule is that models that are underneath the template are hit, with no requirement at all that they be visible underneath the template.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
The answer is none.... and thats how many you hit.

By your standards opaque blast markers would never be able to hit anything because you can't see any models through them. Fortunately this "how many models do you see" rule is one you've invented, not one that is in the actual rules of 40k. The real rule is that models that are underneath the template are hit, with no requirement at all that they be visible underneath the template.

And you see how many bases are under the marker.......how? You might wanna read pg.6

Pick up and move terrain? Dont think so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also might want to read pg.33, because your previous post is 100% incorrect.

the only things from my post that people have picked up on are symantics - no-one has disproved the rules I went through to reach a conclusion.

 some bloke wrote:
the only things from my post that people have picked up on are symantics - no-one has disproved the rules I went through to reach a conclusion.

Your conclusion was based on a faulty premise, as I pointed out.

 some bloke wrote:
the only things from my post that people have picked up on are symantics - no-one has disproved the rules I went through to reach a conclusion.

You based your argument on a false premise, as was pointed out. Renders your argument null

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Since the rules equate the firing unit with the center of the hole, the center of the hole.

This is because you use the center of the blast marker to determine cover saves, Giving the unit stealth or shrouded is a part of determining what cover save the unit has.

That does not matter though "As has been pointed out multiple times so far, LOS is not required for casualty removal from Blasts." (insaniak)

everything you just wrote here is wrong.

Show where the center of the blast marker is equated to the firing unit. it's not, you use the center instead of the model. The center is not a model, nor part of the unit, and you should know better.

Please read "determining cover saves" pg 18 and show where stealth or shrouded is mentioned at all?

LOS does matter as it has been pointed out multiple times so far.

Apart from the FAQ and rules on page 34 proving you wrong, of course.

And what does pg 34 or the faq say about cover saves? where does it state the marker is a model?

You based your argument on a false premise, as was pointed out. Renders your argument null

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
You are extrapolating examples that are not in the FAQ. Can you please give me the rules that support your argument.

Is the blast an attacking unit?
Is the hole a unit?
If either of these are not true, your example dose not work.

The hole is equated to the firing unit because that is where we are told the shot comes from.

So where is Night Fighting measured from?

Since the rules equate the firing unit with the center of the hole, the center of the hole.

This is because you use the center of the blast marker to determine cover saves, Giving the unit stealth or shrouded is a part of determining what cover save the unit has.

That does not matter though "As has been pointed out multiple times so far, LOS is not required for casualty removal from Blasts." (insaniak)

This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

I am sorry, but you are TFG if you insist on hitting targets on top and bottom of the Skyshield.

PanzerLeader wrote:
This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

Thats great for the Ibook, but not everyone has access to that.

That is literally the first time I have even seen this mentioned.

 DeathReaper wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

Thats great for the Ibook, but not everyone has access to that.

That is literally the first time I have even seen this mentioned.

It is in the "Mission Special Rules" section under the "Night Fight" rules (subheader "Picking a Target and Night Fighting"). I only have the phone at work to look it up on so I can't give you a better page reference.

Getting in late to this but I believe that some of the people that are arguing for the right to fire giving permission to allocate wounds argued the opposite concerning Doom Scythe's Death Ray.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

Thats great for the Ibook, but not everyone has access to that.

That is literally the first time I have even seen this mentioned.

It is in the "Mission Special Rules" section under the "Night Fight" rules (subheader "Picking a Target and Night Fighting"). I only have the phone at work to look it up on so I can't give you a better page reference.

Its on Pg124, and worded exactly the same. Its not something new in the iBook.

 DeathReaper wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

Thats great for the Ibook, but not everyone has access to that.

That is literally the first time I have even seen this mentioned.

Page 124, last two sentences under Night Fighting (right before Reserves):


If a shooting attack scatters,
the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used
to determine what effect Night Fighting has.This means that a
unit that is over 36" away can still potentially be hit.

Page 34 tells you to use the rules for blasts , with some exceptions. One is that instead of using the firing unit to work out Los or casualty removal, you use the centre of the blast marker. Meaning that, when you read the FAQ you get to the part about the firing unit, and replace that with the centre of e blast. As was already pointed out to you,

 DeathReaper wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

Thats great for the Ibook, but not everyone has access to that.

That is literally the first time I have even seen this mentioned.

That's priceless. I remember a poll I did a while ago about night fighting, which you were quite vocal in, and yet you've never read the rules for night fighting? Nor the thread you were posting in as that point was also made there.

How can you answer questions about a rule, when you've never bothered to read the rule?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

Thats great for the Ibook, but not everyone has access to that.

That is literally the first time I have even seen this mentioned.

That's priceless. I remember a poll I did a while ago about night fighting, which you were quite vocal in, and yet you've never read the rules for night fighting? Nor the thread you were posting in as that point was also made there.

How can you answer questions about a rule, when you've never bothered to read the rule?

I read them, However those rules are more general than the ones for barrage.

The Barrage rule is more specific about the shot coming from the center of the marker, so that rule has zero impact on barrage.

Not true, as the rules for nightlight and shrouded / stealth kick in before you get to barrage rules. They do not override here

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
This is false. "If a shooting attack scatters, the distance from the firing unit to the original target is used to determine what effect Night Fighting has." Page 731 of the iBook version.

Thats great for the Ibook, but not everyone has access to that.

That is literally the first time I have even seen this mentioned.

That's priceless. I remember a poll I did a while ago about night fighting, which you were quite vocal in, and yet you've never read the rules for night fighting? Nor the thread you were posting in as that point was also made there.

How can you answer questions about a rule, when you've never bothered to read the rule?

I read them, However those rules are more general than the ones for barrage.

The Barrage rule is more specific about the shot coming from the center of the marker, so that rule has zero impact on barrage.

nos is correct. You determine the distance when you select target and then based on the distance, the targetted unit gains stealth, shrouded or neither. The center of the hole matters only for seeing what type of base cover save would apply in this case.

No nos is not correct, The center of the marker is used to determine what? A: Cover saves for the target unit... Guess what stealth and shrouded are... cover saves.

But that debate has nothing to do with the Skyshield so how about we not continue with this Off Topic tangent.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No nos is not correct, The center of the marker is used to determine what? A: Cover saves for the target unit... Guess what stealth and shrouded are... cover saves.

But that debate has nothing to do with the Skyshield so how about we not continue with this Off Topic tangent.

And how do you know if stealth grants a cover save, or improves one, if you don't first determine what cover save they have. like pg 18 tells us how to do. have you read that page? "determining cover saves" Does distance matter in determining cover saves? no, see pg 18

Secondly how can you equate "instead of" to mean "equal to in every way"

I rode my daughters bicycle to work today instead of a Lamborghini, so by your logic my daughters bike is a Lamborghini. Want to buy a Lamborghini, slightly used?

instead of the firing unit means it is not the firing unit, and as the center of the blast is not in any way the firing unit, we use the original distance measured, between the firing unit, and the target unit, even if the shot scatters.

This does relate to the OP as I'm still making the case that blasts just wound either whats on the skyshield, or what's under it, not both. So apparently we need to address blast markers in general as people seem to be confused on how they work.

sirlynchmob wrote:

And how do you know if stealth grants a cover save, or improves one, if you don't first determine what cover save they have. like pg 18 tells us how to do. have you read that page? "determining cover saves" Does distance matter in determining cover saves? no, see pg 18

It doesnt matter if stealth grants a cover save, or improves one, Stealth is used in the calculation to determine a models cover save, and the barrage rules are specific on how to handle cover saves, which override the more basic rules.

But that debate has nothing to do with the Skyshield so how about we not continue with this Off Topic tangent.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

And how do you know if stealth grants a cover save, or improves one, if you don't first determine what cover save they have. like pg 18 tells us how to do. have you read that page? "determining cover saves" Does distance matter in determining cover saves? no, see pg 18

It doesnt matter if stealth grants a cover save, or improves one, Stealth is used in the calculation to determine a models cover save, and the barrage rules are specific on how to handle cover saves, which override the more basic rules.

But that debate has nothing to do with the Skyshield so how about we not continue with this Off Topic tangent.

It matters a lot, how do you know if stealth grants or improves a cover save?
Either show me on pg 18 where stealth or range is used in determining cover, or mark your argument your own house rule. or actually show by page number and paragraph where stealth is used to determine cover saves, or range between units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No nos is not correct, The center of the marker is used to determine what? A: Cover saves for the target unit... Guess what stealth and shrouded are... cover saves.

But that debate has nothing to do with the Skyshield so how about we not continue with this Off Topic tangent.

Except Stealth and Shrouded are USRs that modify cover saves gained at a specific time in the targeting process when Nightfight is in effect. Which was rigeld's on topic point a page ago.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No nos is not correct, The center of the marker is used to determine what? A: Cover saves for the target unit... Guess what stealth and shrouded are... cover saves.

But that debate has nothing to do with the Skyshield so how about we not continue with this Off Topic tangent.

Actually I am, as every thread on this proved in the part. Whether the unit has stealth or shrouded is worked out at check range, well before barrage kicks in

 xscoutsniperx wrote:
+1 vote for hitting the models on top not both. but theres always TFG whos gotta try to bend and make rules only make sense to themselves.

Common sense would be nice but its rare now an days.

But if somebody is bringing a SSLP and placing models under and on top....more than likely doing something 'TFG' to them is just evening the playing field. Obviously there are exceptions, but most SSLPs are fielded with malicious intent.

They don't even make decent sniper platforms....

JinxDragon wrote:
They don't even make decent sniper platforms....

They are excellent sniper platforms...just not for snipers. An Imperial Knight or several offensive tanks can be a huge threat with a 4++ giving them a good measure of safety from enemy attacks.

In general, my advice is to not take the Skyshield. It leads to a lot of balance and logic problems (i.e.: How would a tank even roll up the thing?) that can be solved RAW-wise but definitely aren't satisfying for at least one side.

The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

 Nilok wrote:
The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

Talked about tanks driving onto the platform after the game has started. Makes zero sense logically but is allowed RAW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

Talked about tanks driving onto the platform after the game has started. Makes zero sense logically but is allowed RAW.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

Talked about tanks driving onto the platform after the game has started. Makes zero sense logically but is allowed RAW.

Secret machine spirit power that makes the tank fly? I have no idea.

 Nilok wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

Talked about tanks driving onto the platform after the game has started. Makes zero sense logically but is allowed RAW.

Secret machine spirit power that makes the tank fly? I have no idea.

It is actually a retractable ramp that is built into the Skyshield.

This is not a feature present on the miniature though.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

Talked about tanks driving onto the platform after the game has started. Makes zero sense logically but is allowed RAW.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.
.

My point exactly. It's just a thing because it irritates a lot of beginning players who aren't as familiar with the rules as we are.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

Talked about tanks driving onto the platform after the game has started. Makes zero sense logically but is allowed RAW.

Secret machine spirit power that makes the tank fly? I have no idea.

It is actually a retractable ramp that is built into the Skyshield.

This is not a feature present on the miniature though.

Where in the rules is the permission to allocate wounds from a blast template to models on different levels of terrain?

If anyone jumps in and states that it doesn't have different levels, then there is no need to be on top of it to gain it's benefits as there is only one level. Being above it and below it would be the exact same and moving onto and off of it would require only a roll of a 1. It also causes the difficulty of models being underneath a vehicle, atop the base of other models, and all manner of issues. Would you gain a cover save from the top of the terrain? Would you gain a cover save from models that are on top of the terrain? Since it doesn't have levels, all blasts would hit every model under the template and you wouldn't have to declare which level you are targeting. Etc.etc.....

That being said. If it is the going consensus that the barrage template goes from heaven to the floor. Then it would also apply to ruins as well. As the rules for regular blasts specifically state that the wounds can only be allocated to the stated/declared level. You do not state which level when firing a barrage weapon.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
The tank got air dropped onto the skyshield?

Talked about tanks driving onto the platform after the game has started. Makes zero sense logically but is allowed RAW.

Secret machine spirit power that makes the tank fly? I have no idea.

It is actually a retractable ramp that is built into the Skyshield.

This is not a feature present on the miniature though.

Where in the rules is the permission to allocate wounds from a blast template to models on different levels of terrain?

In the rules for Blasts, you hit everything under the blast marker. The only exception to this is for ruins.

That being said. If it is the going consensus that the barrage template goes from heaven to the floor. Then it would also apply to ruins as well. As the rules for regular blasts specifically state that the wounds can only be allocated to the stated/declared level. You do not state which level when firing a barrage weapon.

It would apply to ruins as well, if the ruin rules didn't specify otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:



In the rules for Blasts, you hit everything under the blast marker. The only exception to this is for ruins.

That being said. If it is the going consensus that the barrage template goes from heaven to the floor. Then it would also apply to ruins as well. As the rules for regular blasts specifically state that the wounds can only be allocated to the stated/declared level. You do not state which level when firing a barrage weapon.

It would apply to ruins as well, if the ruin rules didn't specify otherwise.

The rules do not specify otherwise. There are rules for blast that require you declare a level that is targeted with a furtherance that only those models on the level stated may have wounded. It goes further to state that if it scatters and doesn't hit the declared level what to do in those cases. There is no declaration of level for a barrage weapon to target, it uses different rules for ruins. If there is no requirement (permission) to declare a level to target, then the rules for what to do if you miss the declared level cannot apply. BUT....that's only if you require the rules to expressly give you permission in order to perform an action.

Now, back to the sky shield. It is completely how you want to play it. It's a unique piece of terrain that has no listed fire points, battlements, levels and very few rules. There are absolutely no rules for models underneath the top surface. It's not a building, nor is it any other type of terrain. Each time one is placed on the table, the opponents have to decide what is what and how it works, with the noted exceptions of the top surface being open terrain, moving on to top surface is difficult, and the furled/unfurled rules. There is nothing more subjective than terrain.

According to rules written, If you are playing it as having two levels, then the models underneath it would be on open ground with absolutely no cover save. The stanchions holding it up are not walls as they are part of a unique terrain feature and walls are not a unique terrain feature nor can the landing pad be placed over top of other terrain.

Were I playing, and someone insisted that that the template hits models under the terrain piece, I would carefully remove all my models from the top. and insist that he place the template over the models underneath first. You know, for accuracy. Hopefully, I wouldn't accidentally knock over a bunch of them and have to straighten them up. I am rather clutzy though.

"There are rules for blast that require you declare a level [of a ruin] that is targeted "

Fixed that for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"There are rules for blast that require you declare a level [of a ruin] that is targeted "

Fixed that for you.

Ok, for those that didn't know that I was talking about a targeting levels of a ruin. Of which, you are obviously not one. Good of you to ignore the remainder of my post to express that you understood what I was talking about. I expect that you'll be addressing the remainder once you've run it through google translator.

 Idolator wrote:

According to rules written, If you are playing it as having two levels, ...

Which you wouldn't be doing by the rules as written, since the rules don't list it as a ruin.

Treating the skyshield as a ruin is a fairly common houserule that write nicely fixes most of the issues with it...but is not RAW.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

According to rules written, If you are playing it as having two levels, ...

Which you wouldn't be doing by the rules as written, since the rules don't list it as a ruin.

Treating the skyshield as a ruin is a fairly common houserule that write nicely fixes most of the issues with it...but is not RAW.

Seriously that was way out of context.

If you're not playing as having two levels then you would never have anyone under it, case solved.

If you are, then you run into all those issues that I listed as no part of it can be considered as any other type of terrain.

Honestly though, the terrain type is listed as unique. The rules for unique state that the two examples presented are "merely the beginning of your possibilities, not the end!" So you pretty much have carte blanche to play it any way that you want and still be within the rules as written.

Edit: I know that's a tough concept for some people, but in this case especially, that's the way that it is.

 Idolator wrote:

If you're not playing as having two levels then you would never have anyone under it, case solved.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. You don't normally apply the rules for multiple levels from the ruin section to the skyshield, because it is not a ruin.

That doesn't mean that you ignore the fact that the platform is raised off the ground. It simply means that the rules for how to resolve certain in game situations that apply specifically to ruins don't apply to the skyshield, because it isn't a ruin.

Edit: I know that's a tough concept for some people, ...

Snide little asides like this add nothing constructive to the discussion.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you're not playing as having two levels then you would never have anyone under it, case solved.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. You don't normally apply the rules for multiple levels from the ruin section to the skyshield, because it is not a ruin.

That doesn't mean that you ignore the fact that the platform is raised off the ground. It simply means that the rules for how to resolve certain in game situations that apply specifically to ruins don't apply to the skyshield, because it isn't a ruin.

Edit: I know that's a tough concept for some people, ...

Snide little asides like this add nothing constructive to the discussion.

Exactly, you do play it as having two levels. And all of those issues that I mentioned come into play. The things holding it up aren't walls, the top floor provides no cover, etc.

BTW, that was not a snide comment. Isolating it from the rest of the sentence (for no reason) makes it look a little fishy, but no less true. The rules for unique terrain literally spell out that they are not hard and fast rules. Merely a starting point. Some people have difficulty with this either as a concept or as an application, but there it is written into the rules, making it both RAW and RAI.

When I'm being snide it's unmistakable. Just as old DR's was at the top of this page.

 Idolator wrote:
The rules for unique terrain literally spell out that they are not hard and fast rules. Merely a starting point.

Yes, they do... but they're talking about terrain pieces that you make up for yourself to have their own unique rules. The paragraph at the end of the unique terrain section explains that unique terrain that has a datasheet has all the information you need on that datasheet.

So the Skyshield being unique doesn't mean that players should make up their own rules for it. It already has rules. They're just not very good.

Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

It really doesnt. It takes about 5 minutes max at the start of the game to clarify what the SS has in terms of terrain rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

That is stupid "advice".
10000's of people around the world manage to play the game with out any sort of confusion at all by sorting it out amongst themselves.
It is you who should be taking a leaf out of their book.

Fragile wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

It really doesnt. It takes about 5 minutes max at the start of the game to clarify what the SS has in terms of terrain rules.

I was specifically talking of beginners / casuals here. We are quite different as a lot of us frequently visit YMDC and already had a look at those discussions. Someone who just plays the game to play it and isn't as rules-savvy as we are simply won't know the RAW way to handle this. The official and correct way to play this out is extremely counter-intuitive as it defies common sense. Average players certainly will not think about what happens if a Template Weapon hits units under a Skyshield. For most people units below won't get hit. I sincerely doubt that most people think "Oooooh, look, here's the rule for template weapons...yeah, it hits them although being under the shield!". They "cross the bridge when they get to it" and then, hopefully, have a look on the internet and find the info they were searching for.

I think the point is most people are happy to play the game they wish and that is fun, granted in dire peril of not playing it "the official way".

I might add that the forums of Dakka are not the custodians of the "official way" either.
"The Official Way" to resolve things is laid out quite clearly in the rulebook and in summary it says "work it out with your opponent" and doesn't make mention of the Internet.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The rules for unique terrain literally spell out that they are not hard and fast rules. Merely a starting point.

Yes, they do... but they're talking about terrain pieces that you make up for yourself to have their own unique rules. The paragraph at the end of the unique terrain section explains that unique terrain that has a datasheet has all the information you need on that datasheet.

So the Skyshield being unique doesn't mean that players should make up their own rules for it. It already has rules. They're just not very good.

I disagree. The rules for unique terrain are to be taken as a whole and the rules for changing/adding/building your own terrain apply to all unique terrain both those that you make yourself and those that have data sheets. Earlier in the book it tells us that the rules are to be taken in context.

The fact that there are no rules for placing a vehicle on a sky shield, no determination on how to treat the different levels, no rules for how to treat the support stanchions, no rules for firing at nor rules that disallow firing at the structure, etc.etc. etc. proves that it doesn't have all that you need to play it. It merely has the unique rules attributed to it.

Leaving us with a conundrum. We either use the rules for unique terrain and fill in the blanks ourselves (which everyone does) or you use the rules for unique terrain and play with something that has poorly written and incomplete rules. Both follow the rules for unique terrain and allows the players to play the terrain piece the way that they like. Both types of play are following the RAW.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

No, I understand RAW and RAI. The rules clearly tell you that unique terrain and how you play it is entirely up to the players. Meaning that however you decide to play it is following both the direct RULES AS WRITTEN as well as RULES AS INTENDED. Since they spell out that they intend for unique terrain to be played however you want.

Terrain is highly subjective in the first place and one of the fuzziest aspects of the game. Unique terrain and how to play it is entirely up to the players themselves. Those data sheets contain only the unique rules attributed to the unique feature. Otherwise they would have large entries as buildings, forests and water features do.

 Idolator wrote:
No, I understand RAW and RAI. The rules clearly tell you that unique terrain and how you play it is entirely up to the players. Meaning that however you decide to play it is following both the direct RULES AS WRITTEN as well as RULES AS INTENDED. Since they spell out that they intend for unique terrain to be played however you want.

Terrain is highly subjective in the first place and one of the fuzziest aspects of the game. Unique terrain and how to play it is entirely up to the players themselves. Those data sheets contain only the unique rules attributed to the unique feature. Otherwise they would have large entries as buildings, forests and water features do.

(Emphasis mine)

Page 114 disagrees with the underlined statement. " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games." (Emphasis mine 114)

The datasheet contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games, not some of the info, all the info. How you play it is clearly not entirely up to the players, as my rules quote has proven.

I can't seems to find the rules for when units are stacked on top of each other but are not in ruins. I can only guess that this interaction was not foreseen by the rules writers and was omitted.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
No, I understand RAW and RAI. The rules clearly tell you that unique terrain and how you play it is entirely up to the players. Meaning that however you decide to play it is following both the direct RULES AS WRITTEN as well as RULES AS INTENDED. Since they spell out that they intend for unique terrain to be played however you want.

Terrain is highly subjective in the first place and one of the fuzziest aspects of the game. Unique terrain and how to play it is entirely up to the players themselves. Those data sheets contain only the unique rules attributed to the unique feature. Otherwise they would have large entries as buildings, forests and water features do.

(Emphasis mine)

Page 114 disagrees with the underlined statement. " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games." (Emphasis mine 114)

The datasheet contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games, not some of the info, all the info. How you play it is clearly not entirely up to the players, as my rules quote has proven.

Except for the fact that it obviously doesn't contain all the rules needed to play. That puts a little bit of a hitch in your reasoning. Is it a mistake, was it intentional, who knows? It doesn't change the fact that they aren't there and that eventuality is covered under the rules for unique terrain.

I already rattled off several of the rules that aren't covered that are essential to play. The most glaring and relative to this discussion would be the rules for units underneath the darned thing and rules for shooting at the structure itself. Bottom line: those rules are incomplete as they only contain the unique aspects of the terrain piece. Claiming that those unique rules are the only rules allowed would make the thing unplayable in the extreme.

Your stance causes more issues than it fixes.

Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

What other rules effect it?????? Are you referring to rules not contained on the data sheet? Hmmmm....

I recall someone stating that all the rules to play were on the data sheet. I'll remember who in a minute....I'll have to get back to you. It's right at the tips of my fingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I found it. It was this guy.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play.

I'm not sure that this is reliable though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because he wrote this house rule as fact. In order to support his position. To paper over the lack of rules allowing a tank to move onto a second level with no visible means to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It is actually a retractable ramp that is built into the Skyshield.

This is not a feature present on the miniature though.

If it's not present on the model, it doesn't exist. The data sheet clearly say access points:as per model.

Edit: In fact, there are no rules written in the book that allow a vehicle to move to an upper level.

Idolator,
Do you honestly expect Game Workshop to print the entire Rule Book on each data sheet, even the basics, just to be true to the word 'all' within that sentence?

While the Rules for the Skyshield are very... very... very... ve.... you get the idea... poorly written, the Authors did state that the datasheet will include the Rules needed to use this terrain piece within the game. It is far more reasonable to conclude that the Authors where talking about any Rule that might conflict with one found in the Rule Book, or be required to give it additional permission to do X or Y. All the basic rules would still be followed concerning these pieces unless otherwise noted.

Now if only they took this datasheet back to the drawing board, and the terrain piece that represents it at that....

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
Do you honestly expect Game Workshop to print the entire Rule Book on each data sheet, even the basics, just to be true to the word 'all' within that sentence?

No. That's my point. It doesn't contain all the rules to play it. Just the relevant unique rules.

Edit: Everything else must be filled in by the players.

You cannot argue that the data sheet contains all the rules to play a terrain feature AND argue that it shouldn't be expected to contain all the rules to play a terrain feature.

'Filling in the gaps' by using the default Rules found in the rest of the book. Not by applying specific Rules designed for completely unrelated situations, all the while claiming that anyone whom believes it functions differently is wrong from a Rule as Written perspective. The sky shield, as poorly worded as it is, is functional as Written even if it does have strange quirks such as floating up to the top or being able to drop shells on units underneath it. Not because there is a gap in the Rules telling us how to do X or Y, but simply because there are no rules telling us that X and Y are restricted.

Personally,
These are flaws in the Terrain Piece itself, not the Rules surrounding it, and I honestly wonder if the Author and Sculptor where ever in the same room as each other....

JinxDragon wrote:
Using the default Rules found in the rest of the book, not by applying specific Rules designed for completely unrelated situations and claiming it is the only 'correct' way to play.

So, what are the rules for moving a vehicle onto the upper levels of a structure? A page reference would be nice.

You mean like the instructions telling us that Models can move onto the Shield by passing a Difficult Terrain test?

JinxDragon wrote:
You mean like the instructions telling us that Models can move onto the Shield by passing a Difficult Terrain test?

No, the rules for vehicles actually being on the upper levels. I did say "move onto" it was an inference to actually having one up there. We know that a vehicle cannot be on the upper level of a ruin as there is a listed restriction. This establishes a difference between the placement of vehicles and other units onto upper levels. Now, there is no reference at all to vehicles as to their positioning on the upper levels of unique terrain. Going by the old adage of "If it doesn't say that you can, then you can't." a vehicle wouldn't be allowed on the top surface of a two level unique structure. With the exception of skimmers, which are listed as being able to move onto and off of the landing pad.

Don't worry, I found it. It's in the upper right corner of page 71. In a forging the narrative box. Second paragraph. It tells you to discuss the effects that terrain would have on your vehicles. That whole, players-having-to-decide thing again.

It seems to be on just about every other page that mentions the rules for terrain? odd....

We are informed that the top of the shield is Open Terrain, can vehicles be placed on Open Terrain?

JinxDragon wrote:
We are informed that the top of the shield is Open Terrain, can vehicles be placed on Open Terrain?

Fair enough.

I do agree that there is massive amounts of problems with this terrain piece, however I don't think it is the Rules which cause the problem but the physical "model" itself.

I will state that this doesn't excuse the Rules from failing to correct the issue with the physical representation, the Author really should of had one of these things sitting on their desk prior to penning the Datasheet for it and something makes me doubt they actually did. The more and more I review threads like this, the more obvious it becomes that the Author and Sculptor had very little coordination with each other. I have yet to see a problem being put forth, outside of the 'deploy a flyer in the center of the table' question that was quickly shot down, that could not be fixed by simply removing the legs off the things. No elevation, no models being hit through the shield itself, no levitating models and likely a few other problems go away....

If one wants to keep the original height, build the thing into a hill.

JinxDragon wrote:
I do agree that there is massive amounts of problems with this terrain piece, however I don't think it is the Rules which cause the problem but the physical "model" itself.

I will state that this doesn't excuse the Rules from failing to correct the issue with the physical representation, the Author really should of had one of these things sitting on their desk prior to penning the Datasheet for it and something makes me doubt they actually did. The more and more I review threads like this, the more obvious it becomes that the Author and Sculptor had very little coordination with each other. I have yet to see a problem being put forth, outside of the 'deploy a flyer in the center of the table' question that was quickly shot down, that could not be fixed by simply removing the legs off the things. No elevation, no models being hit through the shield itself, no levitating models and likely a few other problems go away....

If one wants to keep the original height, build the thing into a hill.

Gravity usually takes care of the levitating models. If you think models can levitate, then you're not just cheating, you're breaking the law

JinxDragon wrote:
I do agree that there is massive amounts of problems with this terrain piece, however I don't think it is the Rules which cause the problem but the physical "model" itself.

I will state that this doesn't excuse the Rules from failing to correct the issue with the physical representation, the Author really should of had one of these things sitting on their desk prior to penning the Datasheet for it and something makes me doubt they actually did. The more and more I review threads like this, the more obvious it becomes that the Author and Sculptor had very little coordination with each other. I have yet to see a problem being put forth, outside of the 'deploy a flyer in the center of the table' question that was quickly shot down, that could not be fixed by simply removing the legs off the things. No elevation, no models being hit through the shield itself, no levitating models and likely a few other problems go away....

If one wants to keep the original height, build the thing into a hill.

Yeah, it causes all of these questions as well.

Is a vehicle (or any other model for that matter) allowed to be placed over top of another models base of a friendly while in open terrain? How is coherency measured with models from a unit on the ground and others atop the sky shield? How is distance to the enemy models measured from units on the ground floor to the top? Can enemy units be directly beneath one another? Can units even be partially atop the sky shield?

It's junk, with junk rules. It has to be discussed and ironed out by opponents.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

What other rules effect it?????? Are you referring to rules not contained on the data sheet? Hmmmm....

I am referring to the basic rules for terrain that affects all terrain...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

What other rules effect it?????? Are you referring to rules not contained on the data sheet? Hmmmm....

I am referring to the basic rules for terrain that affects all terrain...

So the ones that aren't on the data sheet. That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification.

sirlynchmob,
Take that up with the people whom claim Wobbly Model Syndrome covers it....

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

What other rules effect it?????? Are you referring to rules not contained on the data sheet? Hmmmm....

I am referring to the basic rules for terrain that affects all terrain...

So the ones that aren't on the data sheet. That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification.

In context the all means the relevant unique rules...

Do not ignore the context.

 Idolator wrote:
Is a vehicle (or any other model for that matter) allowed to be placed over top of another models base of a friendly while in open terrain?

There is nothing in the movement rules that would prevent a model from being geographically above another model.

How is coherency measured with models from a unit on the ground and others atop the sky shield? How is distance to the enemy models measured from units on the ground floor to the top? Can enemy units be directly beneath one another?

You measure normally, from base edge to base edge, because there is no rule in place that says to do otherwise.

Can units even be partially atop the sky shield?

If you allow WMS to apply to the difficult terrain movement that gets you up onto the pad, yes. Otherwise the coherency rules would effectively prevent it.

JinxDragon wrote:
sirlynchmob,
Take that up with the people whom claim Wobbly Model Syndrome covers it....

you brought it up, I figured I'd add on. There's to many opinions around here for me to try and keep track of who all is in what camps

What's odd is the one I know is on the pro levitation side, didn't think you should be able to levitate a unit arriving from reserves if there is no other place to deploy the unit.

It is a table top game after all, so in context, your models should stay on the table to play the game

I would assume the rules for TLOS come into play here. For all intents and purposes a blast template centered over a group of model above/under is hitting all of them since you don't have to choose a level since it is not a ruin. If I am not wrong, then a model above/below where the template was placed will receive a cover save since, with barrage weaponry, you do draw LOS from the blast template and they are, in fact, more than 25% obscured. Then you apply a cover save to the models above/below the landing pad depending on where you placed the marker and what terrain type is between the material. It is akin to placing a blast template over a unit that is divided by a wall. If particular models of the unit are behind the wall from the perspective of the center of the template then they get a save.

Say there are 8 Tac Marines in a Skyshield landing pad. If a Basilisk shot has it's template centered over the marines on top then they would only get a 4+ invuln save. The marines below would get a 3+ cover save thanks to it being a piece of purchased terrain. You still get 8 hits no matter what if you get the template all over them but you'd have to roll for them separately.

As far invul saves it would depend on where the model physically is. If it's on top of the Skyshield landing pad it gets the 4+. If it's not it doesn't.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Can units even be partially atop the sky shield?

If you allow WMS to apply to the difficult terrain movement that gets you up onto the pad, yes. Otherwise the coherency rules would effectively prevent it.

This is why you also want to stay firmly in the "it's not a ruin" camp. If you allow that for WMS, or call it a ruins for coherency, then you open up to leaving one model on the top, having 20 ork boys trailing off to wherever and the whole unit getting a 4++ from just one model on the shield.

As it is RAW, you measure B2B which puts models 3"ish apart from 'on the shield' to the 'under the shield'

It prevents the train shenanigans, but makes assaults a tad more difficult as the whole unit needs to get onto the skyshield to assault a unit up there.

Sirlynchmob,
I brought it up as an example, in a list of problems that occur because of this dang piece of terrain, simply because it has been brought up and even supported by a solid number of posters here on the site! Personally I would just move the unit as close to the legs as possible, even underneath the thing if the Test gives enough distance to do so, where they will be out of line of sight if it is really that vital that I somehow get onto the thing. Much easier to just wait till the next Round to move onto the shield....

You know, if I didn't use the Tau doctrine of shoot them from far-far-far away and would never climb the Shield in the first place....

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob,
I brought it up as an example, in a list of problems that occur because of this dang piece of terrain, simply because it has been brought up and even supported by a solid number of posters here on the site!
Personally I would just move the unit as close to the legs as possible, even underneath the thing if the Test gives enough distance to do so, where they will be out of line of sight and just wait till the next Round to move onto the shield... you know, if I didn't use the Tau doctrine of shoot them from far-far-far away.

why next to the legs? you can fit a model inside the legs if you really wanted to no WMS needed.

While it is not entirely broken it is another thing I would put forth as evidence that the Rules where written without the physical model in mind: The Difficult Terrain Roll itself!

I don't know the exact dimensions off the top of my head, but a quick review of what was posted online suggests the model is 3 inch tall. At that height the Difficult Terrain Test ensures that we need a minimal result of 4 inches, even if the Model in question is kissing the legs, just to get on the thing. That is to ensure a model clear the vertical height and adding a little bit of horizontal movement needed to place the model on top of it. Any model that is a few inches away from one of the legs has the near impossible task of successfully making the Roll.

Has anyone actually tried to move a unit from the ground onto one of these models to see how successful such a move is?
I can't say I have even tried, the shield isn't something I see all that often in the tiny group I play with, but the math alone makes it a daunting task.

JinxDragon wrote:
While it is not entirely broken it is another thing I would put forth as evidence that the Rules where written without the physical model in mind: The Difficult Terrain Roll itself! The elevation of the model ensures that you need a minimal result of 4, even if the Model in question is kissing the legs, just to ensure you clear the height and the little bit of horizontal movement needed to place the model on top of it. Any model that is a few inches away from one of the legs has the near impossible task of successfully making the Roll.

Has anyone actually tried to move a unit from the ground onto one of these models to see how successful such a move is?
I can't say I have even tried, the shield isn't something I see all that often in the tiny group I play with, but the math alone makes it a daunting task.

I brought it to a tourny, put 30 lootas on it, and it was my worst games ever.

the thing is you get 2 x d6 to get at least one 4+.

or when you assault, you get 3d6 drop the highest to get at least 4. Even easier to do with skimmers and jump infantry.

both of those equate to an almost guaranteed roll to get up there. the only difficult part is fitting up there.

Fair enough, but you still would of had to be underneath or kissing the legs in order to get the first few models up there even with a 4 inch result is my point, as any distance away from those would require a higher and higher Result. However at least the thickness of the base would be enough to get it within coherency, by a tiny fraction of an inch, if one Model was right positioned underneath one standing on the Shield. Any other unit still approaching the thing would be best forgetting about climbing it till they where huddled underneath in the first place....

JinxDragon wrote:
Fair enough, but you still would of had to be underneath or kissing the legs in order to get the first few models on there even with a 4 is my point. However at least the thickness of the base would be enough to get it within coherency, by a tiny fraction of an inch, if one Model was right positioned underneath another. Any other unit still approaching the thing would be best forgetting about climbing it till they where huddled underneath in the first place....

and being huddled under it, is an awesome place to be.

movement: 1 model moves out from under it til it can see a unit on the shield.
assault: that 1 model is the only one that can die from overwatch, then the rest of the unit just passes through the bottom to make b2b.

But aside from getting up there, it's only a 4+ save, you can shoot units off from it. which means, on average, for every 2 wounds a model dies. A bunch of twin linked eldar war walkers almost cleared my shield on the first turn of shooting. If you think getting a 4+ on 2d6 is a daunting task, it should be near impossible with 1d6.

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
While it is not entirely broken it is another thing I would put forth as evidence that the Rules where written without the physical model in mind: The Difficult Terrain Roll itself! The elevation of the model ensures that you need a minimal result of 4, even if the Model in question is kissing the legs, just to ensure you clear the height and the little bit of horizontal movement needed to place the model on top of it. Any model that is a few inches away from one of the legs has the near impossible task of successfully making the Roll.

Has anyone actually tried to move a unit from the ground onto one of these models to see how successful such a move is?
I can't say I have even tried, the shield isn't something I see all that often in the tiny group I play with, but the math alone makes it a daunting task.

I brought it to a tourny, put 30 lootas on it, and it was my worst games ever.

the thing is you get 2 x d6 to get at least one 4+.

or when you assault, you get 3d6 drop the highest to get at least 4. Even easier to do with skimmers and jump infantry.

both of those equate to an almost guaranteed roll to get up there. the only difficult part is fitting up there.

The rub, it's not a ruin and the top is a solid piece of open ground. There is no rules allowance to move through open ground only over it. It's not a wall or any other piece of terrain. You would have to agree with your opponent that you can move directly through the floor. If you don't have that agreement you would have to get every model in the unit in base contact for a 4 to get the whole unit up there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

What other rules effect it?????? Are you referring to rules not contained on the data sheet? Hmmmm....

I am referring to the basic rules for terrain that affects all terrain...

So the ones that aren't on the data sheet. That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification.

In context the all means the relevant unique rules...

Do not ignore the context.

I'm pretty sure that someone said something to this effect. It may take me a minute. Hang on,I'll get back to you. I mean it's riiiiight there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found it! It was this guy!

 Idolator wrote:
It doesn't contain all the rules to play it. Just the relevant unique rules.

Glad to see that you two agree!

 Idolator wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
While it is not entirely broken it is another thing I would put forth as evidence that the Rules where written without the physical model in mind: The Difficult Terrain Roll itself! The elevation of the model ensures that you need a minimal result of 4, even if the Model in question is kissing the legs, just to ensure you clear the height and the little bit of horizontal movement needed to place the model on top of it. Any model that is a few inches away from one of the legs has the near impossible task of successfully making the Roll.

Has anyone actually tried to move a unit from the ground onto one of these models to see how successful such a move is?
I can't say I have even tried, the shield isn't something I see all that often in the tiny group I play with, but the math alone makes it a daunting task.

I brought it to a tourny, put 30 lootas on it, and it was my worst games ever.

the thing is you get 2 x d6 to get at least one 4+.

or when you assault, you get 3d6 drop the highest to get at least 4. Even easier to do with skimmers and jump infantry.

both of those equate to an almost guaranteed roll to get up there. the only difficult part is fitting up there.

The rub, it's not a ruin and the top is a solid piece of open ground. There is no rules allowance to move through open ground only over it. It's not a wall or any other piece of terrain. You would have to agree with your opponent that you can move directly through the floor. If you don't have that agreement you would have to get every model in the unit in base contact for a 4 to get the whole unit up there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
While it is not entirely broken it is another thing I would put forth as evidence that the Rules where written without the physical model in mind: The Difficult Terrain Roll itself! The elevation of the model ensures that you need a minimal result of 4, even if the Model in question is kissing the legs, just to ensure you clear the height and the little bit of horizontal movement needed to place the model on top of it. Any model that is a few inches away from one of the legs has the near impossible task of successfully making the Roll.

Has anyone actually tried to move a unit from the ground onto one of these models to see how successful such a move is?
I can't say I have even tried, the shield isn't something I see all that often in the tiny group I play with, but the math alone makes it a daunting task.

I brought it to a tourny, put 30 lootas on it, and it was my worst games ever.

the thing is you get 2 x d6 to get at least one 4+.

or when you assault, you get 3d6 drop the highest to get at least 4. Even easier to do with skimmers and jump infantry.

both of those equate to an almost guaranteed roll to get up there. the only difficult part is fitting up there.

The rub, it's not a ruin and the top is a solid piece of open ground. There is no rules allowance to move through open ground only over it. It's not a wall or any other piece of terrain. You would have to agree with your opponent that you can move directly through the floor. If you don't have that agreement you would have to get every model in the unit in base contact for a 4 to get the whole unit up there.

Nothing funny about it, if you do not ignore the context, then "All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games." (114)

And that means that the datasheet contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Where in the rules is the permission to allocate wounds from a blast template to models on different levels of terrain?

In the rules for Blasts, you hit everything under the blast marker. The only exception to this is for ruins.

When placing the blast template on top of the Skyshield, could you tell me how many models are seen beneath? I'm especially curious to hear of those below the Skyshield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
While it is not entirely broken it is another thing I would put forth as evidence that the Rules where written without the physical model in mind: The Difficult Terrain Roll itself! The elevation of the model ensures that you need a minimal result of 4, even if the Model in question is kissing the legs, just to ensure you clear the height and the little bit of horizontal movement needed to place the model on top of it. Any model that is a few inches away from one of the legs has the near impossible task of successfully making the Roll.

Has anyone actually tried to move a unit from the ground onto one of these models to see how successful such a move is?
I can't say I have even tried, the shield isn't something I see all that often in the tiny group I play with, but the math alone makes it a daunting task.

I brought it to a tourny, put 30 lootas on it, and it was my worst games ever.

the thing is you get 2 x d6 to get at least one 4+.

or when you assault, you get 3d6 drop the highest to get at least 4. Even easier to do with skimmers and jump infantry.

both of those equate to an almost guaranteed roll to get up there. the only difficult part is fitting up there.

Had an opponent position his models in such a way that it was impossible to get on top of the model to engage them in melee. I thought that was pretty stupid.

Of course I have this hate relationship with all of these special terrain pieces, including ADL.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing funny about it, if you do not ignore the context, then "All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games." (114)

And that means that the datasheet contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games.

This is the point where I step aside and allow you to continue to argue both sides of the point against yourself.

Where you ignore the greater context of the unique terrain rules, to focus on the last paragraph,to insist that data sheets include all the information to use a terrain feature, to claim that they don't include all relevant information, claiming that it has to be taken in context while ignoring the context of unique terrain features, to focus on the last paragraph,to insist that data sheets include all the information to use a terrain feature, to claim that they don't include all relevant information, claiming that it has to be taken in context while ignoring the context of unique terrain features

Put on repeat and press play.

Edit: I once had a similar conversation regarding the thermometers placed in a car. Where the cars owner disputed the weather report on the temperature, because it didn't match the temperature noted on his dash indicator. When I pointed out that those automobile thermometers weren't all that accurate, he vehemently disagreed because he stated that his was always in line with the weather report! Then continued to state that the weather report was wrong because his dashboard thermometer had a different reading.

If you keep ignoring context, I can't help you further.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you keep ignoring context, I can't help you further.

What context? Please elaborate.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you keep ignoring context, I can't help you further.

What context? Please elaborate.

The context of page 114.

It states that " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games."

This includes a Terrain Type.

The terrain type tells you that it is terrain and has all said rules associated with that type of terrain.

The Skyshield is "Unique. The top surface of the Skyshield landing Pad is open terrain. To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain."(115)

Therefore if you are on the top surface you are in open terrain, when moving onto or off of the landing pad those models count as moving through difficult terrain.

All of the information is on the datasheet...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you keep ignoring context, I can't help you further.

What context? Please elaborate.

The context of page 114.

It states that " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games."

This includes a Terrain Type.

The terrain type tells you that it is terrain and has all said rules associated with that type of terrain.

The Skyshield is "Unique. The top surface of the Skyshield landing Pad is open terrain. To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain."(115)

Therefore if you are on the top surface you are in open terrain, when moving onto or off of the landing pad those models count as moving through difficult terrain.

All of the information is on the datasheet...

The terrain type is: unique, sending you back to the unique terrain rules.

And context also says that under the template means just that. Models immediately under the template.

if you are in bed, than in context you are under the sheets.
we don't grammatically say the bed is under the sheets, nor the boxes under the bed are under the sheets.

so in context with the blast rules, only the models directly under the template are hit. As those are the only models you can see when you look from above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and to be technical the word is actually "beneath"

extending or directly underneath, typically with close contact.

Does anyone actually play that you can hit models on top and below at the same time ? This thread makes me sad

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you keep ignoring context, I can't help you further.

What context? Please elaborate.

The context of page 114.

It states that " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games."

This includes a Terrain Type.

The terrain type tells you that it is terrain and has all said rules associated with that type of terrain.

The Skyshield is "Unique. The top surface of the Skyshield landing Pad is open terrain. To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain."(115)

Therefore if you are on the top surface you are in open terrain, when moving onto or off of the landing pad those models count as moving through difficult terrain.

All of the information is on the datasheet...

The terrain type is: unique, sending you back to the unique terrain rules.

The terrain type is unique, then they explain what the unique aspects of the terrain are in the following sentences...

Hydrapup wrote:
Does anyone actually play that you can hit models on top and below at the same time ? This thread makes me sad

No, but that's because I don't play with a skyshield.

If someone were to put one on the table, though, I woul dbe pushing for house ruling it to use the Ruins rules... not just for the blasts issue, but because it removes several other issues with how the skyshield works as well.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you keep ignoring context, I can't help you further.

What context? Please elaborate.

The context of page 114.

It states that " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games."

This includes a Terrain Type.

The terrain type tells you that it is terrain and has all said rules associated with that type of terrain.

The Skyshield is "Unique. The top surface of the Skyshield landing Pad is open terrain. To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain."(115)

Therefore if you are on the top surface you are in open terrain, when moving onto or off of the landing pad those models count as moving through difficult terrain.

All of the information is on the datasheet...

The terrain type is: unique, sending you back to the unique terrain rules.

The terrain type is unique, then they explain what the unique aspects of the terrain are in the following sentences...

so the unique rules no longer apply?

 insaniak wrote:

Hydrapup wrote:
Does anyone actually play that you can hit models on top and below at the same time ? This thread makes me sad

No, but that's because I don't play with a skyshield.

If someone were to put one on the table, though, I woul dbe pushing for house ruling it to use the Ruins rules... not just for the blasts issue, but because it removes several other issues with how the skyshield works as well.

Yeah im with you with that... but I don't see the need to even raise the issue I mean if there were models underneath a bridge would people play that a barage blast goes through the bridge hitting models underneath and perhaps on top also regardless of the height of the bridge.... I would never willingly play against such a person and thankfully I never have.

Insaniak,
First I would ask if he can cut off the legs....

 Idolator wrote:
so the unique rules no longer apply?

No, the unique rules are listed after the terrain type.

You're still confusing just what the unique rules do. If you're creating your own terrain, then as per the unique rules you sort it out with your opponent. If you are using a piece of pre-made terrain that is classed as unique, the rules unique to that terrain piece are listed on the dataslate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hydrapup wrote:
Yeah im with you with that... but I don't see the need to even raise the issue

You need to raise the issue simply because it's just one of several issues with how the skyshield works that is resolved by the same fix.

I mean if there were models underneath a bridge would people play that a barage blast goes through the bridge hitting models underneath and perhaps on top also regardless of the height of the bridge....

Unless you agree to count the brisdge as having multiple levels as if it was a ruin, yes, that's how the rules work, so that's how it should be played.

Sometimes, the rules don't make a lot of real-world sense. There are any number of examples throughout the rules where something is abstracted for the sake of gameplay.

I think there is plenty enough precedent to say the RAW is that you must be able to see what is under the template and so if you can't see it from above you can't hit it.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
I think there is plenty enough precedent to say the RAW is that you must be able to see what is under the template and so if you can't see it from above you can't hit it.

By that reasoning, though, you would never be able to target the units under the pad with blasts or templates at all.

 insaniak wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
I think there is plenty enough precedent to say the RAW is that you must be able to see what is under the template and so if you can't see it from above you can't hit it.

By that reasoning, though, you would never be able to target the units under the pad with blasts or templates at all.

Very true. RAW means you can't, if we follow them explicitly.

Good old RAW!

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
so the unique rules no longer apply?

No, the unique rules are listed after the terrain type.

You're still confusing just what the unique rules do. If you're creating your own terrain, then as per the unique rules you sort it out with your opponent. If you are using a piece of pre-made terrain that is classed as unique, the rules unique to that terrain piece are listed on the dataslate.

Insaniak answered it as well as I could.

The rules for the unique Skyshield are literally printed in the sentences following Terrain Type: Unique.

 insaniak wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
I think there is plenty enough precedent to say the RAW is that you must be able to see what is under the template and so if you can't see it from above you can't hit it.

By that reasoning, though, you would never be able to target the units under the pad with blasts or templates at all.

No not really. The template can still be placed over a model underneath the skyshield and allowance made for not being able to practically see the template from above. The same reasoning applies to being able to shoot from a unit underneath the skyshield. You must be able to trace a line from sight to the models' eyes but you cannot practially get your head under the shield to do so.

The rule is to "see" what is under the template, the practicalities of determining that will vary.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The template can still be placed over a model underneath the skyshield and allowance made for not being able to practically see the template from above.

So why wouldn't you make that same allowance when the template is held above the skyshield?

 insaniak wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The template can still be placed over a model underneath the skyshield and allowance made for not being able to practically see the template from above.

So why wouldn't you make that same allowance when the template is held above the skyshield?

The allowance is made when you can't see the template, not when you can't see anything underneath it.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The template can still be placed over a model underneath the skyshield and allowance made for not being able to practically see the template from above.

So why wouldn't you make that same allowance when the template is held above the skyshield?

The allowance is made when you can't see the template, not when you can't see anything underneath it.

But you can see the blast marker, just look under the Skyshield...

 DeathReaper wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The template can still be placed over a model underneath the skyshield and allowance made for not being able to practically see the template from above.

So why wouldn't you make that same allowance when the template is held above the skyshield?

The allowance is made when you can't see the template, not when you can't see anything underneath it.

But you can see the blast marker, just look under the Skyshield...

Then there isn't a problem.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
The template can still be placed over a model underneath the skyshield and allowance made for not being able to practically see the template from above.

So why wouldn't you make that same allowance when the template is held above the skyshield?

The allowance is made when you can't see the template, not when you can't see anything underneath it.

But you can see the blast marker, just look under the Skyshield...

Then there isn't a problem.

You can see the blast marker, you can always see the blast marker. However that does not mean you can determine who is under the blast marker. So an allowance needs to be made for not being able to practically see the template from above.

 insaniak wrote:
So why wouldn't you make that same allowance when the template is held above the skyshield?