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.

 IndigoJack wrote:
He didn't say he wanted a 4++. I imagine that he's going to do the conversion regardless of the answer and is just curious to know how the fortifications interact when stacked.

Fortifications do not stack on top of eachother, it is amazing to me that you can pose this and expect to be taken even slightly seriously. I don't know what game people are playing where they take 4 force organization charts with 4 fortress's of redemption and go ahead and stack them on top of eachother , maybe propped up elaborately, but it is not 40k.

I was under the impression that a fortification must be placed a specific distance away from any other terrain piece when deployed, including other fortifications. I am at work so I will cite my source when I return home.

 Smashotron wrote:
I was under the impression that a fortification must be placed a specific distance away from any other terrain piece when deployed, including other fortifications. I am at work so I will cite my source when I return home.

Fortifications can touch if you take a fortification network.

 Elgrun wrote:
Fortifications do not stack on top of eachother,

They can if you take a fortification network, that means fortifications can be placed within contact of each other. (The OP mentions this).

Ok, so slightly roundabout, but the RaW does indeed ban this disposition:

p92: "Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules."
It then says how they are "not moveable" etc.

p71: "Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models"

The sky shield isn't a friendly model, it is a fortification

I think we both know that there is a world of difference between a trench network and stacking 4 Imperial bastions on top of eachother....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The sky shield isn't a friendly model, it is a fortification

The above is 100% correct.

The Skyshield is terrain, not a model.

 Elgrun wrote:
I think we both know that there is a world of difference between a trench network and stacking 4 Imperial bastions on top of eachother....

Yet both are allowed by the fortification network rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:
I think we both know that there is a world of difference between a trench network and stacking 4 Imperial bastions on top of eachother....

Yet both are allowed by the fortification network rules.

So speaking of "contact" in the context with the rest of the rules and to establish consistency with the term;

If I assault your vehicle, RAW I put a bunch of models on top of the vehicle to ensure I get as many as I can into base contact with your hull right?

or for models with bases, I can overlap my bases onto yours to maximize base contact?

After one model is in B2B, I could just pile the rest of my models on top of yours. RAW right? because I've established B2B so the rest of my unit just needs to be within 2" of that model.

Or is it just possible, that we are really playing a 2D game that's trying to be 3D so we shouldn't stack models unless we have a more clearly worded rule granting permission for such action.

I love reading things like this. It is a little crazy and yet totally legal as written. So I believe that the Bastion would get a 4++.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:
I think we both know that there is a world of difference between a trench network and stacking 4 Imperial bastions on top of eachother....

Yet both are allowed by the fortification network rules.

So speaking of "contact" in the context with the rest of the rules and to establish consistency with the term;

If I assault your vehicle, RAW I put a bunch of models on top of the vehicle to ensure I get as many as I can into base contact with your hull right?

As long as you can find an allowance to move on top of the vehicle. Page number for where this is located?

or for models with bases, I can overlap my bases onto yours to maximize base contact?

As long as you can find an allowance to move on top of other models bases. Page number for where this is located?

After one model is in B2B, I could just pile the rest of my models on top of yours. RAW right? because I've established B2B so the rest of my unit just needs to be within 2" of that model.

Same as above.

Or is it just possible, that we are really playing a 2D game that's trying to be 3D so we shouldn't stack models unless we have a more clearly worded rule granting permission for such action.

You do not have an allowance to lift your models off of the table to get them on top of other models, so your points are moot.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The fact that buildings function like units doesn't mean they are units, they are still terrain pieces.

They function like any other unit in your army. do the other units in your army get a invuln save from the sky shield? yep, and that's the answer.

That doesn't work though does it? If they function like any other unit in my army, then there is nothing preventing me from putting it into reserve, allocating outflank to it via special rules and then utilising P124 to walk an immobile building onto my opponents backfield......

So no, your statement cant be right.

Cheers

Andrew

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:
I think we both know that there is a world of difference between a trench network and stacking 4 Imperial bastions on top of eachother....

Yet both are allowed by the fortification network rules.

So speaking of "contact" in the context with the rest of the rules and to establish consistency with the term;

If I assault your vehicle, RAW I put a bunch of models on top of the vehicle to ensure I get as many as I can into base contact with your hull right?

As long as you can find an allowance to move on top of the vehicle. Page number for where this is located?

or for models with bases, I can overlap my bases onto yours to maximize base contact?

As long as you can find an allowance to move on top of other models bases. Page number for where this is located?

After one model is in B2B, I could just pile the rest of my models on top of yours. RAW right? because I've established B2B so the rest of my unit just needs to be within 2" of that model.

Same as above.

Or is it just possible, that we are really playing a 2D game that's trying to be 3D so we shouldn't stack models unless we have a more clearly worded rule granting permission for such action.

You do not have an allowance to lift your models off of the table to get them on top of other models, so your points are moot.

So why is it allowed for the bastion to be on the skyshield from the usage of the word 'contact' yet not for any of the other 3 situations I listed?

so consistancy = none, you're really just arguing HYWPI

So where is your allowance to stack buildings? page number please. Obviously the word contact as seen in the situation I presented isn't enough to grant "contact" to equate to "on top of"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The fact that buildings function like units doesn't mean they are units, they are still terrain pieces.

They function like any other unit in your army. do the other units in your army get a invuln save from the sky shield? yep, and that's the answer.

That doesn't work though does it? If they function like any other unit in my army, then there is nothing preventing me from putting it into reserve, allocating outflank to it via special rules and then utilising P124 to walk an immobile building onto my opponents backfield......

So no, your statement cant be right.

Cheers

Andrew

except pg 120 says you must place fortifications on the table before terrain. so my statement is correct. As your example is wrong, so to must be your conclusion.

Sorry P120 doesn't help you, because you place your fortifications by deploying them. 2nd sentence infact. Only, units may be deployed into reserve.

Back to you.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Sorry P120 doesn't help you, because you place your fortifications by deploying them. 2nd sentence infact. Only, units may be deployed into reserve.

Back to you.

Cheers

Andrew

Sure it does, when you set up your game, the first thing you do is place your fortification. Non optional. Then you place terrain
Even alternating terrain states this.

then you place objective markers, determine warlord traits, then deploy forces.

so tell me how you could ever still have fortification in your deploy forces phase? you can't. and it's at that point you choose not to deploy up to 1/2 your units and place them in reserves.

If it is treated as any other model bastions and the like now give up first blood?. I have totally missed that wording from Stronghold somehow.

If you read P121 there is no facility to retain half your forces for reserves. P121 actually states that you must deploy your entire army on the board.

So I have the exact same permission to deploy my fortification into reserves as any other unit.

Lets look at P120.

Next, players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain. If both players have one or more fortifications then take it in turns to deploy them...

P124

....When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units keeping them as reserves to arrive later...

So in summary, a fortification is part of your army. Placing it on the table is deployment and it is a unit in my army. All three meet the requirements of P124.

What did I miss?

Cheers

Andrew

sirlynchmob wrote:
So why is it allowed for the bastion to be on the skyshield from the usage of the word 'contact' yet not for any of the other 3 situations I listed?

Because you are allowed to have the skyshield and bastion touching...

so consistancy = none, you're really just arguing HYWPI

No, you are actually allowed to have the terrain touch each other as per the rules for a fortification network...

So where is your allowance to stack buildings? page number please. Obviously the word contact as seen in the situation I presented isn't enough to grant "contact" to equate to "on top of"

See Fortification Network in the Stronghold assault rules.

 AndrewC wrote:
If you read P121 there is no facility to retain half your forces for reserves. P121 actually states that you must deploy your entire army on the board.

So I have the exact same permission to deploy my fortification into reserves as any other unit.

Lets look at P120.

Next, players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain. If both players have one or more fortifications then take it in turns to deploy them...

P124

....When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units keeping them as reserves to arrive later...

So in summary, a fortification is part of your army. Placing it on the table is deployment and it is a unit in my army. All three meet the requirements of P124.

What did I miss?

Cheers

Andrew

pg 121 when it tells you to deploy your forces, that pg 124 is modifying. Which occurs after all the fortifications must be place on the table.

Like I said, follow the sequence of events, first you must place fortification, then you place terrain, objective markers, determine warlord traits, then deploy forces.

deploy forces, Armies are placed ... this is where you are deploying your army and it is here where you can choose to place things in reserve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So why is it allowed for the bastion to be on the skyshield from the usage of the word 'contact' yet not for any of the other 3 situations I listed?

Because you are allowed to have the skyshield and bastion touching...

so consistancy = none, you're really just arguing HYWPI

No, you are actually allowed to have the terrain touch each other as per the rules for a fortification network...

So where is your allowance to stack buildings? page number please. Obviously the word contact as seen in the situation I presented isn't enough to grant "contact" to equate to "on top of"

See Fortification Network in the Stronghold assault rules.

you mean to say the sky shield and bastion can be in contact with each other. and you where quite clear in all other usages of the word contact they don't allow for stacking.

If being in contact allows for stacking, then when I assault a vehicle, I can put models on top of the vehicle so my base is in contact with the hull. just like the rules for assault and vehicles grant permission for.

so pick one, RAW, does the usage of contact allow for stacking or not? if you are picking and choosing how to apply it, then it is clearly HYWPI, and not RAW.

No, because if you are constrained by following a sequence of events, where are the holdover rules allowing you to circumvent the explicit instruction to place your entire army on the board as required by P121?

Cheers

Andrew

sirlynchmob wrote:
you mean to say the sky shield and bastion can be in contact with each other. and you where quite clear in all other usages of the word contact they don't allow for stacking.

If being in contact allows for stacking, then when I assault a vehicle, I can put models on top of the vehicle so my base is in contact with the hull. just like the rules for assault and vehicles grant permission for.

so pick one, RAW, does the usage of contact allow for stacking or not? if you are picking and choosing how to apply it, then it is clearly HYWPI, and not RAW.

There is no allowance to put your models on a vehicle when you assault it by virtue that there are rules that say you can not put models on top of other modes as per the FAQ...

Bastions are not models, so rules that affect models do not have any effect on terrain...

 AndrewC wrote:
No, because if you are constrained by following a sequence of events, where are the holdover rules allowing you to circumvent the explicit instruction to place your entire army on the board as required by P121?

Cheers

Andrew

Yes we follow the sequence of events. Start with pg 118, then follow the sequence, the armies, the mission, the battlefield, set up fortifications. When we get to deployment we find:

Once the battlefield has been set up (ie fortification, terrain, and objectives) it is time to determine your warlord traits and deploy the armies for battle.

Reserves are more specific instruction on pg 124. pg 121 is for all games, and there are allowances to play games not using the eternal war missions. the eternal war missions allow for using reserves. Pg 124 is used in your deployment phase after fortifications are already on the table.

Sorry I still don't see anywhere on P124 that it applies only to P121. It only has three caveats. One it is a unit, two that it is part of my army and three I am deploying it.

Going further, the Reserves Special Rule is determined before you even get to the stage of deploying Fortifications.

So your first sentence above actually concedes the point. Fortifications can be deployed to reserves if it considered a unit in your army.

Cheers

Andrew

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you mean to say the sky shield and bastion can be in contact with each other. and you where quite clear in all other usages of the word contact they don't allow for stacking.

If being in contact allows for stacking, then when I assault a vehicle, I can put models on top of the vehicle so my base is in contact with the hull. just like the rules for assault and vehicles grant permission for.

so pick one, RAW, does the usage of contact allow for stacking or not? if you are picking and choosing how to apply it, then it is clearly HYWPI, and not RAW.

There is no allowance to put your models on a vehicle when you assault it by virtue that there are rules that say you can not put models on top of other modes as per the FAQ...

Bastions are not models, so rules that effect models do not have any effect on terrain...

Which FAQ is this again? I'm looking through the brb faq and I'm not finding anything like that under vehicles. Be a pall and post it would ya?

I'm glad you're agreeing with stacking buildings though. I think a macro-cannon aquila strongpoint on a sky shield sounds like a fun time


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:
Sorry I still don't see anywhere on P124 that it applies only to P121. It only has three caveats. One it is a unit, two that it is part of my army and three I am deploying it.

Going further, the Reserves Special Rule is determined before you even get to the stage of deploying Fortifications.

So your first sentence above actually concedes the point. Fortifications can be deployed to reserves if it considered a unit in your army.

Cheers

Andrew

I can't say it any clearer, it's your part 3 that's wrong, once you realize at what point you are deploying your army, you'll see why you already have your fortifications deployed.

Okay lets look at this in a different way.

Is the Fortification part of your Army?

Do you deploy your Fortification onto the board?

Is the Fortification a Unit?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Okay lets look at this in a different way.

Is the Fortification part of your Army?

Do you deploy your Fortification onto the board?

Is the Fortification a Unit?

Cheers

Andrew

Yes,
No, You place them. Which occurs long before deploying your army.
Yes, they function like any other unit in your army.

P120 contradicts your assertion that they are placed rather than deployed.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
P120 contradicts your assertion that they are placed rather than deployed.

Cheers

Andrew

Still doesn't change the fact that when you prepare your reserves, it's done during the deploy forces step. Not at the set up fortification step.

But that's the problem there is no explicit statement that the reserves rule only applies to the deploy forces step. There is an inferred statement there, because that has always been the case.

The easiest choice is to say that Fortification are not units for all intents and purposes.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
But that's the problem there is no explicit statement that the reserves rule only applies to the deploy forces step. There is an inferred statement there, because that has always been the case.

The easiest choice is to say that Fortification are not units for all intents and purposes.

Cheers

Andrew

I disagree on both accounts, Do you see the section called "deployment"

If you go with deploying fortifications counts as deploying your army, then you can not roll for a warlord trait. That is done before either player deploys. Yet it occurs after set up fortification.

The only logical place for selecting reserves is under deployment, after warlord traits when it says to deploy forces. At which point your buildings are already on the table.

and stronghold assault change the rules for buildings and they now function like any other unit in your army. If you use stronghold assault Its `now RAW.

In most regards, not in all regards.