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.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So no, you do not get to put a Land Raider on a Fortress. Period.

Do you have any rules backing this stance, or is this just HYWPI?

It looked like greyknight12 had it till that GK FAQ.

I am still confused to exactly what the battlements are supposed to be. Did the GK FAQ say that they aren't buildings b/c that is what it looks like?

Simply acting as cover seems to state anything could go there.

So what about a Dreadnought? It will fit.

Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on page 95.

The BRB says that a bastion is treated as a multi part building, but the FaQ removes the multi-part building status, simply giving the guys on the roof cover if they are behind the wall.

There is still a restriction of a single unit on the battlement for the bastion.

Really, most of the Fortification rules have large gaping holes in them, the Bastion is no exception.

The thing I feel people are overlooking is that the parts of the FAQ causing problems do not even relate to the question 'what is a battlement?'

Of course the real issue is how badly written the FAQ is, like most of the terrain section. Compiling these FAQ's into the rules is being problematic if we take them at face value. Effectively it would be the equivalent of re-writing that whole chapter of the book. If they really intended to change the nature of battlements that dramatically then it is going to be done in the errata and not through answering a single badly formatted question.

The FAQ on assault was simply reasserting the need to actually be in the part of the section being assaulted then being embarked 'in/on' the building in general, as per the multiple-part building rules.

The FAQ on it being separate is just reasserting that the Multi-Part building rules treats all parts of a multiple-part building as separate buildings.

I don't think vehicles in a bastion counts as a "gaping hole" in the rules. For one, its stupid, who plays like that? Second, how by the rules does one embark a vehicle into a building, much less onto a battlement?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I don't think vehicles in a bastion counts as a "gaping hole" in the rules. For one, its stupid, who plays like that? Second, how by the rules does one embark a vehicle into a building, much less onto a battlement?

We are talking about the 40K rules, there underlined has no bearing, as a lot of things are stupid from a real life standpoint, but the rules are not real life, they are an abstract system for simulating a battle 38,000 years from now. what is stupid in the real world could make perfect sense in the rule set.

You do not embark a vehicle into a building, as only infantry can embark in transports (With certain exceptions for Jump Infantry, dreads etc).

The battlement rules make it clear that the models on top are not embarked, and as such any unit can be deployed there if it can fit.

So RAW a Tank can be deployed on top of a bastion if the tank can fit on top, but a tank can not move there unless it is a Skimmer and can fit.

 grendel083 wrote:
Greyknight12 you also need to take the FAQ's into account.

Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on page 95.

Or more importantly:
Q. What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save


So despite the fact that the rulebook quite clearly defines battlements as buildings, they are not buildings.

Frankly, the best option here is to just not use fortifications until GW sorts their gak out.

 insaniak wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Greyknight12 you also need to take the FAQ's into account.

Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on page 95.

Or more importantly:
Q. What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save


So despite the fact that the rulebook quite clearly defines battlements as buildings, they are not buildings.

Frankly, the best option here is to just not use fortifications until GW sorts their gak out.

Or the other option is to not be a TFG and put a vehicle on a battlement.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Frankly, the best option here is to just not use fortifications until GW sorts their gak out.

Or the other option is to not be a TFG and put a vehicle on a battlement.

So following the rules is being a TFG?

You must have some Interesting games.

there's following the rules, then there is this specific scenario.

one time I was playing a kid in a fun (gasp!) tournament where we built armies to switch off to our opponents. he usually played orks and didn't have any vehicles at the time, so when he got my Dark Angels rhino, he thought it a good idea to put it in the ruins of a building.. three floors up. Yes, legal, but overall a stupid maneuver. The TO saw this and called him out for it.

This is a stupid loophole to exploit. Seriously, is someone going to play it like this in person with a straight face?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
there's following the rules, then there is this specific scenario.

one time I was playing a kid in a fun (gasp!) tournament where we built armies to switch off to our opponents. he usually played orks and didn't have any vehicles at the time, so when he got my Dark Angels rhino, he thought it a good idea to put it in the ruins of a building.. three floors up. Yes, legal, but overall a stupid maneuver. The TO saw this and called him out for it.

This is a stupid loophole to exploit. Seriously, is someone going to play it like this in person with a straight face?

It is only stupid if you believe in a realistic ruleset.

Of Course, the 40K mini's game does not have a realistic ruleset by any definition.

The 40K mini's game has an abstract rules system used to determine the outcome of a game, nothing more.

I think even this takes abstract to an absurd level.

So I ask again, could anyone seriously play this in public with a straight face?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I think even this takes abstract to an absurd level.

So I ask again, could anyone seriously play this in public with a straight face?

I have let an opponent do it, he wanted to deploy on the second floor of a 2 story ruin, there is nothing preventing it, so he deployed there. It did not really affect the outcome of the game.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I think even this takes abstract to an absurd level.

So I ask again, could anyone seriously play this in public with a straight face?

I say to you, Ruined Parking Garage ruin* lol

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I think even this takes abstract to an absurd level.

So I ask again, could anyone seriously play this in public with a straight face?

Through 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition the groups I played with quite happily let units be deployed into places they couldn't actually move to, on the assumption that they could be hoisted up there prior to the battle.

The only reason it didn't happen in 5th edition was because GW actually put in a ruling that units couldn't be deployed in places they couldn't move to.

Wow...insaniak... just wow. They have effectively torn the whole battlement section out of the book, ripped it into graffiti and tossed it out the window. Every other FAQ answer on this matter could be turned around to fit into the existing rules, which a good written FAQ should as it isn't errata, but that last one was an assassination shot right into the heart of the one part that was less ambiguous then most.

Well I know what I will be doing now, my tanks will climb those damn ladders!

Wow my bad...yeah about that FAQ...

Looks like battlements aren't a building after all. I stand corrected (dang, I swore I'd never be caught ignoring a FAQ!!)

It's still a ridiculous concept, abusing the battlements and wobbly model syndrome to slap a Land Raider on top of a building. The OP would have had a cow with the old Ork trukk rule...

What 'old ork trukk rule'...?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
It's still a ridiculous concept, abusing the battlements and wobbly model syndrome to slap a Land Raider on top of a building. The OP would have had a cow with the old Ork trukk rule...

How is following the rules for battlements and deployment "abusing the battlements"?

Psss, hey Grey... happens to me all the time, don't feel bad.

I'm just sad I wasted a whole night combing through those rules. They where not the best written and I had to jump between book sections just to try and follow the 'not so logical' pathways the writers clearly intended. I was more focused on what rule differences buildings have between vehicles, because the one thing that battlements did clearly spell out was the fact they where a building.

All of that gone with one FAQ....

 insaniak wrote:
What 'old ork trukk rule'...?

Possibly the "transport capacity as many as you can fit inside it" rule?

That was never a trukk rule. It was for the 2nd Ed battlewagon, before trukks were introduced to the game.

 insaniak wrote:
That was never a trukk rule. It was for the 2nd Ed battlewagon, before trukks were introduced to the game.

Whichever. they weren't much bigger than trukks nowadays anyways...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
It's still a ridiculous concept, abusing the battlements and wobbly model syndrome to slap a Land Raider on top of a building.

The tank still has to fit.
WMS doesn't come into it, as the battlements rules state they must fit completely without balancing acts.
A LandRaider simply won't fit on top of a Bastion or Fortress of Redemption.
It's not as bad as you make it out, there's not a lot of buildings a vehicle will fit on.

 grendel083 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
It's still a ridiculous concept, abusing the battlements and wobbly model syndrome to slap a Land Raider on top of a building.

The tank still has to fit.
WMS doesn't come into it, as the battlements rules state they must fit completely without balancing acts.
A LandRaider simply won't fit on top of a Bastion or Fortress of Redemption.
It's not as bad as you make it out, there's not a lot of buildings a vehicle will fit on.

Dreadnoughts fit nicely on top of the tower of a FoR. I once parked a TLLC/ML dread on top of one in a doubles tournament, and none of our opponents even batted an eye at it rules wise. Nice line of sight up there.

Sort of, assuming you were playing the hull mounted weapons vertical LOS correctly - 22.5degrees down means that type of elevation youre only shooting things a fair distance away, or at a similar elevation to you.

Dreadnought weapons aren't Hull Mounted. The weapon mounts pivot down quite bit.

 grendel083 wrote:
Dreadnought weapons aren't Hull Mounted. The weapon mounts pivot down quite bit.

Reread the walker rules. They are indeed hull mounted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sort of, assuming you were playing the hull mounted weapons vertical LOS correctly - 22.5degrees down means that type of elevation youre only shooting things a fair distance away, or at a similar elevation to you.

grendel083 wrote:Dreadnought weapons aren't Hull Mounted. The weapon mounts pivot down quite bit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Dreadnought weapons aren't Hull Mounted. The weapon mounts pivot down quite bit.

Reread the walker rules. They are indeed hull mounted.

Looking at the rulebook now. It is, as normal, a mess. While not saying explicitly that walker weapons are hull mounted, it does use the 45 degree language that also defines how to treat fixed mounts. But it also tells us to use the normal vehicle rules of measuring and looking down the barrel. Assuming you haven't glued the arms on a dread, they have a significantly larger range of motion then 45 degrees.

My take on this is if the weapons are fixed, use the 45, if they can move, use TLOS. I can see arguments both ways, and don't see it addressed in the FAQs.

But this is all tangental to wether or not he can be up there in the first place, which is the topic of the thread.