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

I don't recall there being any rules for deploying a vehicle somewhere you couldn't technically drive it (fluff: bad paradrop maybe?) Is it legal to say, deploy a chimera on the third floor of a ruin? Sure...it can't drive down, but if its got a nice view of the battlefield, it won't need to move, or is this just too cheeky?

Models which deep strike into ruined buildings deep strike onto the bottom floor.

Deep striking into impassible terrain, or failing your dangerous terrain test for difficult terrain, is going to put you straight into the mishap table, btw.

So, no, your chimera isn't arriving on the third floor.

Yes. Much too cheeky. Move on from this "idea."

I don't think he's referring to deep striking, I think he means deploying initially. And if that's the case, I don't think there is any rule against it. Fluff wise, well, the Imperium has specialized tech for everything, so I wouldn't put it past them to have a grappling system or something that could do it. And Imperial building materials should support a vehicle like that, considering how hives are built.

I don't think there's anything prohibiting it.

That said, I would be pissed if you decided to put a Leman Russ on the top of a little shack so that you could shoot over the hill that I deployed behind and had the intention of using.

I would say this is the closest thing to cheating that is possible. Don't expect this to fly with any opponent. Ever.

CK

I played against a IG Armoured Company plenty of times, I just made him make 2 terrain rolls, one for the vechicle, and one for me smacking him on the head.

There are no rules against deployment in said spot, but common sense says no.

My main issue regarding this is whether or not a warbike-mounted Warboss can actually traverse floors. This has come up a time or two in my normal games, and I usually end up rolling a 4+ to see if he can do it every turn I want to traverse floors. We explain it as his attempts to 'ramp off rubble and wreckage to go up the building'.

I do think it's kind've silly, as far as a biker boss goes. It's like saying Meganobz and Terminators can't go up floors because of their wargear upgrades, as well.

As to actual vehicles, I wouldn't allow it unless it's a skimmer (monolith can park ontop of a building for all I care).

I'd have no problem with an Ork biker boss. Ruleswise, he has to take his test, and he isn't a vehicle.

I think that technically you could put a Landraider on top of a building if it setup there, but I'd ask my opponent if he was really going to play that way, and if he was serious, just walk away from the game. "Oops, look at the time!"

Thats odd, the rulebook has a section for Walkers, Infantry and MCs and a section for Jump infantry and JetBikes....but no section on normal bikes. Seems like a pretty big oversite to me.

I'd argue no, a bike couldn't make it up, just like a vehicle couldn't either-- but i could also see the other way, which would be, the difficult terrain roll just represents them using either fancy grapple-hook gear, jumping off some ramp, or hell, getting off the bike and lifting it.


As for deploying vehicles on buildings, fluff wise, perhaps the ramp was destroyed in an earlier battle, or the vehicle was airlifted in. It has the potential to be cheeky and abusive, but meh, i'd probably let my opponent do it (depending on terrain and level of abuse), as the vehicle would essentially be immobile.

I wouldn't mind an opponent deploying a vehicle on top of a building if it looked like a vehicle that could get there, and a building that could support it.

For example, ground vehicles might get into a ruined multi-story carpark, or skimmers might get onto heli-pads.

Having said that, it is fairly cheeky to make a special piece of terrain and deploy it just to get the LoS advantage. The terrain should fit with the environment. You wouldn't find a car park in the middle of the countryside.

bikers and beasts cant move above the ground floor of a building. if i had my BGB on me id give you a reference, but it is there somewhere.

jamsessionein wrote:My main issue regarding this is whether or not a warbike-mounted Warboss can actually traverse floors.

He can't. Page 83, first paragraph.

ferrous wrote:Thats odd, the rulebook has a section for Walkers, Infantry and MCs and a section for Jump infantry and JetBikes....but no section on normal bikes. Seems like a pretty big oversite to me.

No oversight. There's no section detailing how bikes move up and down in ruins because they can't do it in the first place.

I'd let you do it, but I'd also ask that you take a 4+ your vehicle falls several floors and takes damage. Just thinking how to make this even more interesting.

.... ha i'd say yes IF YOU AGREE THAT TERRAIN IS PASSABLE BEFORE THE GAME STARTS page57 terrain affects ...if you do say yes; if it moves, even to turn, it takes a dangous terrain test ... it can only shoot down at 45' so on a 3rd floor building the enemy must be at least +9" away

or on top of a building ... fluff wise it was droped in by mistake ... it must be on a building big enough to fit it ... again it can only shoot down at 45' ... You can attack the building page 79 ... OMG theres a landraider on top of that Corrugated iron shed ...right i know lets blow the S*@#! out of the strenth 9 building and kill it

but basicly its up to you to agree that you can do it before the game start ... still massive amounts of

It seems like the rules allow the deployment of a vehicle on the upper floors of a building simply because they do not disallow it. That's RAW but it doesn't necessarily mean it makes any sense.

However the rules are very clear on the fact that once the vehicle is there it cannot move.

That all being said if an opponent attempted that bs against me I would probably put him on my list of "people I will not play against."

Can the vehicle move there by way of normal movement? If not, then I'd say it cannot deploy there. If yes, go for it.

Brian P wrote:It seems like the rules allow the deployment of a vehicle on the upper floors of a building simply because they do not disallow it. That's RAW but it doesn't necessarily mean it makes any sense.

This is actually not true.
WH40K is a restrictive ruleset, not a permissive one.

In a permissive ruleset, you are allowed to do whatever you want, unless you're specifically told otherwise.
In a restrictive ruleset, you aren't allowed to do ANYTHING, unless you're specifically told otherwise.

Yes, that is a simplistic breakdown, but it is accurate.

Think of it like parents. As a kid, if you had permissive parents, then other people said you "could get away with murder," as the saying goes. If your parents were restrictive, then... not so much. You, basically, needed permission for everything.

Brian P wrote:However the rules are very clear on the fact that once the vehicle is there it cannot move.

Page reference, please. I don't know of anywhere in the book where it says that a vehicle can be on an upper foor but cannot move, once it is there.


Eric

I don't really see how this is cheese. What's the difference between this and putting your devs on the top of a building? Both times you're deploying a shooting unit on higher ground to gain an advantage. 40k rules don't really make any sense to begin with so I try not to get hung up on things like that.

insaniak wrote:

jamsessionein wrote:My main issue regarding this is whether or not a warbike-mounted Warboss can actually traverse floors.

He can't. Page 83, first paragraph.

ferrous wrote:Thats odd, the rulebook has a section for Walkers, Infantry and MCs and a section for Jump infantry and JetBikes....but no section on normal bikes. Seems like a pretty big oversite to me.

No oversight. There's no section detailing how bikes move up and down in ruins because they can't do it in the first place.

Insaniak is exactly right and because I know many won't look the page up, here is the text of that paragraph:

"Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper levels of ruins. Accordingly, only infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes, monstrous creatures and walkers may move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can physically be placed there. Other units may only move on the ground level of the ruin."

This is pretty darn clear, and IMO means NO, you can not deploy there.

-Jara

I would say its completely legal. However as people have mentioned. Your opponents will not like it. Save it for the ard boyz.

Id say use COMMON SENCE!!! could a 6 ton vehilce be supported by a building? think not. it would fall through the floor to the bottom. the only thing you could argue is that if its a reinforced building. If you deep strike on it thats 1 way of getting up thet but if there isnt a legit way of getting up there then id say no way and its totally different from putting a dev squad up there cuz they are infantry whole other story.

Like I said, these rules do not lend themselves to being realistic. If one guy who isn't carrying a heavy weapon moves, none of the squad's heavy weapons can shoot, that doesn't make any sense either.

PistolWraithCaine wrote:I don't really see how this is cheese. What's the difference between this and putting your devs on the top of a building? Both times you're deploying a shooting unit on higher ground to gain an advantage. 40k rules don't really make any sense to begin with so I try not to get hung up on things like that.

Word.

Oftentimes 'ruins' terrain has high vertical walls or smal corners that require interesting acrobatics to place a vehicle model to accurately reflect its position. In such cases it's often a necessity to place a vehicle up on top of walls rather than literally smashing them to bits on the terrain piece.

I've seen lots of movies where motorbikes run up stairs to get to higher ground. And while I agree that its pretty silly, the rules do allow you to put your Russ on the 3rd floor, if the model does in fact stand on its own on the third floor.

Is the top (or other floors) of a building impassible terrain to vehicles? If yes, see the rules for impassible terrain: you are not allowed to place a model in impassible terrain unless both you and your opponent agree that it's okay.

It seems to me that if you can't move your vehicle onto that floor, then that floor would be impassible terrain.

The rule says that vehicles may only "move on" ground level. If you consider the act of placing a model on the table during deployment as "movement" then no, a tank can't deploy on upper floors.

But deployment isn't really movement. It isn't really anything. It's an abstraction of the process of troops taking up positions as a prelude to an attack.

This all being said I think it's an RAI (rules as intended) issue. Of course the developers never intended for you to deploy something where it can't move. I'd never do it and I don't think anyone but an immature or devious player would even presume to try.

MagickalMemories wrote:

Brian P wrote:However the rules are very clear on the fact that once the vehicle is there it cannot move.

Page reference, please. I don't know of anywhere in the book where it says that a vehicle can be on an upper foor but cannot move, once it is there.

Page 83, still.

"...Accordingly, only infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes, monstrous creatures and walkers may move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can physically be placed there. Other units may only move on the ground level of the ruin."

Brian P wrote:The rule says that vehicles may only "move on" ground level. If you consider the act of placing a model on the table during deployment as "movement" then no, a tank can't deploy on upper floors.

But deployment isn't really movement. It isn't really anything. It's an abstraction of the process of troops taking up positions as a prelude to an attack.

This all being said I think it's an RAI (rules as intended) issue. Of course the developers never intended for you to deploy something where it can't move. I'd never do it and I don't think anyone but an immature or devious player would even presume to try.

Yup the only way I can see someone trying to cheeze this is by trying to argue that deployment is not movement. But IMO (and I hope GW judges and others are in agreement) that you can only deploy to locations you can move to.

Does it say this? Most likely not (I've not had a chance to check the deployment rules), but unless is specify says that you can deploy any place you damn well want, I'd argue that deployment is movement and that you have to follow all the normal rules for that.

As quoted by insaniak and jaradakar, it is quite disadvantageous to place a vehicle on upper floors of a building or ruin, as they can't move for the rest of the game.