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.

MagickalMemories wrote:
WH40K is a restrictive ruleset, not a permissive one.

Im pretty glad that this is true to be honest, otherwise the game would simply not work. Say that your opponent started hitting your troops behind cover by firing them up in the air, and making the slugs hit them on the way down. You see, theres nothing in the rules that doesnt stop you from doing this in a permissive ruleset, and if there was they'd have to cover all posibilities making for a flawed and broken game.

I suppose if I built a model of a section of damaged moterway flyover, with an upramp and deck, it could be classed neither as a building nor as a ruin but more like a hill with see-through sections.

Bradmammajamma wrote: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.

Imperial material sciences are orders of magnitude beyond our own. You know how they build hive cities? By building buildings on top of other buildings, until the whole thing is miles high. After all, a mere "concrete" wall gives a 4+ against lascannon fire, well, there is a reason for that. I'm pretty sure even the burnt out, hollow remains of a building could support a tank.

Jaradakar wrote:Yup the only way I can see someone trying to cheeze this is by trying to argue that deployment is not movement.

...which is all the argument they would need. Deployment isn't movement.

, 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.

I'm missing the connection between those two statements.


The fact is, while I would agree that it's potentially a little dodgy, deploying in a location that can't actually be reached by normal movement is allowed by the rules, and has been for several editions. I vaguely recall that there may have been an FAQ in 2nd edition that ruled against it, but nothing since then.

In practice, I would only be inclined to do so it if it was a piece of terrain that could conceivably support the vehicle... I can come up with fluff-based explanations for the vehicle's odd placement straight off the top of my head if absolutely necessary (dropped by flyer, built in-situ by well-meaning but not-so-bright draftees/cultists/mek/whatever, hoisted up by crane, teleported by librarian/weirdboy/sorcerer's awesome cosmic mind-powers, moved by freak micro-warpstorm, moved in the night as a prank by 4th platoon - no idea how they did it, but Emperor's golden nuggets!, how we laughed...)... but wouldn't have a problem with an opponent doing it, particularly given the restriction on moving.

I also have no problem with them doing it, it can't move for the rest of the game.

What about if it's a skimmer and can jump off?

On the whole, the idea is best kept out of everyday games.

I think a rather interesting Cities Of Death table could be built with criss-crossing motorways, multi-level parking structures with lifts, and other things that give both vehicles and troops ways to climb to different levels.

Kilkrazy wrote:What about if it's a skimmer and can jump off?

Can't move means can't move.

Given that the rules are very precise concerning what units can move into and up floors in ruins, I think the answer is clear; at least with regard to the question of an orc warboss on a bike moving into and up ruin floors.

Now deploying a Land Raider, or for that reason any type of tank, on the top floor of a ruins is completely assinine, regardless of whether the rules do not prevent it. I agree with Bradmammajamma that Common sense needs to be exercised here. I was going to start conjecturing on the rest of this but that would be a moot point.

Even as a DE player, I'd have to stand by the rules and say my Raiders can't move onto the top floor of ruins unless the terrain was considered impassable. What good would impassable ruins be for troops anyway?

I'm just hoping they put out a FAQ pretty soon for the rulebook.