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.

Hi,

Just wanted some thoughts on a situation that came up a while back and that's been rolling around in the back of my head since.

A friend of mine played defender and had a bunch of lootas and a couple of kannons of a closed Sky Shield standing firm in the middle of the board.

Clearly, this is an unfavorouble situation for my guards so I take my sentinels and have them fire their lascans on the Sky Shield.

1. Does the shield itself benefit from the 4+ Inv. save? I've played "No" when I've used it.

I manage to not only hit it, but also penetrate it. Yay! Now for damage. 5! Whoho! Wrecked! But... what now?

2. What happens to a wrecked Sky Shield? Should we place it upside down and treat it as difficult terrain? Are models on it allowed to stay on the "floor" and if so, have they moved? I.e. are they allowed to fire heavies? I could argue that the floor disappearing from under your feet should at least make you disoriented enough that turn to prevent you from shooting heavies, but I don't know what the rules say other than that buildings are stationary vehicles and based on that, I think they are allowed to fire.

Basically the orcs went from 4+ Inv. save to 4+ cover save, which in most cases doesn't really matter.

In this specific case we left the shield standing which meant a 3+ diff terrain test to get up on it, but in retrospect I think turning it upside down and treating it as difficult would've been better. Creating incentive to paint the bottom of it as a charred, bloody pit.

So, how would you play it?

How was he able to penetrate the skyshield landing pad? It is not a building and has no associated armor value. For all you know, the designers could have intended for it to have armor 100 on all sides. You cannot shoot at it, therefore it cannot be wrecked.

Uhm, no. It has AV 13 on all sides. At least according to the Planetstrike source book. And it can be shot at just fine.

stupid eldar wraithguns ><

DE Haywire Grenades FTW.

Horst wrote:stupid eldar wraithguns ><

Saldiven wrote:DE Haywire Grenades FTW.

And of course Delicious "Strength D" weapons

Lances? :(

Gwar! wrote:

Horst wrote:stupid eldar wraithguns ><

Saldiven wrote:DE Haywire Grenades FTW.

And of course Delicious "Strength D" weapons

And double 6s Rarrgh SAG hits.

Yeah, yeah.

So, yes, it can be penetrated, but what about my original musings?

When you get a Wrecked result on a vehicle, all passengers immediately disembark and take a Pinning test.

The vehicle (building, in this case) stays on the table and blocks LOS just as it did when it was alive, but becomes Difficult and Dangerous terrain. I like to mark them with cotton smoke (maybe with a little black spraypaint in it) and/or little purpose-built smoke/flame counters.

So the guys have to get off of it (disembark), and will have to take Difficult and Dangerous terrain tests if they want to climb back on.

Is wrecking a building the same as wrecking a vehicle? In the absence of any other rules, I'd go with this idea. The only other thing I can think of was that there used to be rules about bunkers in the BBB. I don't think it made it to 5th. You would think also that Cities of Death would have something on this, but I don't recall seeing anything in there on this topic either.

Yes.

Buildings in general are basically "immobilized" transports.

Thanks guys, byt what about the 4+ inv. save it confers with raised shields? Does the building gain this too?

No.

That's what I thought.

Thanks.