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 disagree,
Simply because X can do something doesn't mean Y should be given the same lea-way, as X and Y are two completely different things.

We are discussing Lords of Wards and Buildings, a comparison of these two highlights that Buildings are greatly different then Lord of Wars in many ways. Lords of War are Models in their own rights with a range from Infantry to Super-Heavies themselves. Fortifications, Buildings in particular, are poorly written concepts that exist outside of the realm of Models while at the same time relying on Rules that interact only with Models. One has Rules which directly relate to it, the other requires Rule Interactions and Count As clauses to achieve the very same effect. Simply stating 'if the latter is allowed then so should the former' is not a suitable answer for this problem.

As for Invisibility, aside from not yet reviewing the Rule it self to see how accurate the question is, I feel it is irrelevant.

If we are to try and determine if the Authors Intended for Buildings to be deployed on top of other Fortifications, then referring a completely unrelated and far better written Rule does not bring us any closer to an answer. Casting a power on a Building requires a Rule designed specifically so Psychic Powers can be cast on Buildings. Deploying a Fortification on top of another Fortification requires access to a Rule which does not mention does not mention anything about Deploying Fortifications on top of Fortifications, but was designed more to change the timing Fortifications where Deployed to prevent the 6th Edition trick with Line of Sight blocking Terrain and to force the Fortification to begin in the Deployment Zone to prevent a few other unintended 6th Edition tricks which had formed.

It is entirely possible this concept was not even conceived, let alone play tested prior to printing, so it is possible that the Authors did not Intend Fortifications on Fortifications.

JinxDragon wrote:
I disagree,
Simply because X can do something doesn't mean Y should be given the same lea-way, as X and Y are two completely different things.

We are discussing Lords of Wards and Buildings, a comparison of these two highlights that Buildings are greatly different then Lord of Wars in many ways. Lords of War are Models in their own rights with a range from Infantry to Super-Heavies themselves. Fortifications, Buildings in particular, are poorly written concepts that exist outside of the realm of Models while at the same time relying on Rules that interact only with Models. One has Rules which directly relate to it, the other requires Rule Interactions and Count As clauses to achieve the very same effect. Simply stating 'if the latter is allowed then so should the former' is not a suitable answer for this problem.

As for Invisibility, aside from not yet reviewing the Rule it self to see how accurate the question is, I feel it is irrelevant.

If we are to try and determine if the Authors Intended for Buildings to be deployed on top of other Fortifications, then referring a completely unrelated and far better written Rule does not bring us any closer to an answer. Casting a power on a Building requires a Rule designed specifically so Psychic Powers can be cast on Buildings. Deploying a Fortification on top of another Fortification requires access to a Rule which does not mention does not mention anything about Deploying Fortifications on top of Fortifications, but was designed more to change the timing Fortifications where Deployed to prevent the 6th Edition trick with Line of Sight blocking Terrain and to force the Fortification to begin in the Deployment Zone to prevent a few other unintended 6th Edition tricks which had formed.

It is entirely possible this concept was not even conceived, let alone play tested prior to printing, so it is possible that the Authors did not Intend Fortifications on Fortifications.

I don't think Fortification on Fortifications is what is at issue. Skyshield has rules which make it specifically allowable by making the Skyshield into terrain so that units can deploy on it.

Disagree again,
In order to gain access to that Special Rule, the Fortification has to be Deployed on top of another Fortification.
If the Authors did not intend for Fortifications to be Deployed on top of Fortifications, how could they have intended for this Rule Interaction?

JinxDragon wrote:
Disagree again,
In order to gain access to that Special Rule, the Fortification has to be Deployed on top of another Fortification.
If the Authors did not intend for Fortifications to be Deployed on top of Fortifications, how could they have intended for this Rule Interaction?

I would like to be able to defeat the interaction with rules and not with postulating about intent.

There is a lot of fuzziness in deployment altogether.

What is required is that you deploy the Skyshield first and then deploy the fortification that will be on top of it next.

Implied is that the open ground on the Skyshield is available during deployment and while deployment is still to be completed.

The logic of it seems to be held together loosely by this rule

SEQUENCING


It's a very loose ruleset with regards to things like deployment. I think for certain things the designers want the players to house rule how they want to play.

So if there is an intent I think the designers want to allow us to be able to put a Macro Cannon on top of a Skyshield IF that's how we want the game to played.

No one has disputed Rule as Written, this is allowed all because of this Rule:
If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models.
No more needed then straight up instructions telling us to deploy them like Models, which are allowed on Sky-shields last I looked.

This side discussion occurred because many people believe this is not intended by the Authors, as it is an easy to over-look interaction between Rules of previous Editions. As the voice of descent, you put forth the argument that they are over-reacting because it is not as devastating as other combinations. Point for point, advantage vs disadvantage, there is some grounds to the argument but like all situations there are also extremes which create problems when it comes to convincing people that this tactic is intended. The existence of AV-should-never-be, found only on an Impassable Building, is a very big concern and making it even more over-powered is a large issue to many players...

This was not a Rule as Written discussion, but a chance to convince people that Buildings on Sky-shields is a-okay, all I will say is that I am still unconvinced that your stance is correct.
If we where to create a 'Wound you play against it' poll, how do you think it would go?

Consider this:
This AV-no-friggen-way building, On-top of a Sky-shield, Invisible.
- Rule as Written legal, and a fair possibility of happening with the right build... do you want to face it?

JinxDragon wrote:
No one has disputed Rule as Written, this is allowed all because of this Rule:
If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models.
No more needed then straight up instructions telling us to deploy them like Models, which are allowed on Sky-shields last I looked.

This side discussion occurred because many people believe this is not intended by the Authors, as it is an easy to over-look interaction between Rules of previous Editions. As the voice of descent, you put forth the argument that they are over-reacting because it is not as devastating as other combinations. Point for point, advantage vs disadvantage, there is some grounds to the argument but like all situations there are also extremes which create problems when it comes to convincing people that this tactic is intended. The existence of AV-should-never-be, found only on an Impassable Building, is a very big concern and making it even more over-powered is a large issue to many players...

This was not a Rule as Written discussion, but a chance to convince people that Buildings on Sky-shields is a-okay, all I will say is that I am still unconvinced that your stance is correct.
If we where to create a 'Wound you play against it' poll, how do you think it would go?

Consider this:
This AV-no-friggen-way building, On-top of a Sky-shield, Invisible.
- Rule as Written legal, and a fair possibility of happening with the right build... do you want to face it?

I don't want to face a Revenant Titan with a Holo-field standing on Skyshield with invisibility either.

I am not trying to convince you one way or the other. I was just pointing out the rules and the game the Buildings on a Skyshield actually exists in. I just keep directing your attention to reality. Even if I weren't actively pointing to it, it would still be the reality. Even if you had a poll on it, it would still be the reality.

The designers seem to want to allow us to go full retar*d if we want to or to allow us take it down a few notches if we want to. They put it entirely on us to put together the game the way we want it to be finally put together.

Nothing keeps either of these brutalities from happening, except how we choose to come together to play the game. The rules themselves are perfectly fine with these brutalities.

The rules may be perfectly fine with it, but on the table it looks absurd.

The real problem for the players, is that is is obviously WAAC tactics and one person who wants to win the game at the expense of the other player.

From my experience, YMDC has two kinds of arguments, how the game is played from RAW, and best practices since GW still can't write English to save their lives.
You can have the balls to the wall night where everyone pulls any they can, but there is a difference between saying, "Yes the RAW says you can, go wild" and "You can, but I don't think you should". This one goes in the latter group.

Yes, the RAW allows you to, but I HIGHLY recommend not doing so since you will quickly lose anyone to play with.

 Nilok wrote:
The rules may be perfectly fine with it, but on the table it looks absurd.

The real problem for the players, is that is is obviously WAAC tactics and one person who wants to win the game at the expense of the other player.

From my experience, YMDC has two kinds of arguments, how the game is played from RAW, and best practices since GW still can't write English to save their lives.
You can have the balls to the wall night where everyone pulls any they can, but there is a difference between saying, "Yes the RAW says you can, go wild" and "You can, but I don't think you should". This one goes in the latter group.

Yes, the RAW allows you to, but I HIGHLY recommend not doing so since you will quickly lose anyone to play with.

That's just it. I wouldn't call this WAAC behavior in any play format where LoW are allowed or where unlimited formations is just allowed.

And if people are playing in some managed format, well the player found some loophole that the management team will need to seal up next time. This is why a lot of the managed tourneys only allow one CAD, one other source whether ally or Formation, and a restricted set of LoW to curtail this sort of abuse.

Winning a format means in large part finding the exploits. Lets stop calling players WAAC who simply do the prep work in finding out the best avenue to win given a certain scope of play. If the format is 40k wild, wild west then expect brokenness.

 Nilok wrote:
The rules may be perfectly fine with it, but on the table it looks absurd.

It only looks absurd if you assume that the combination represents a landing pad with a bastion in the middle of it. If you instead assume that, for example, it's representing (within the limits of the player's available models) an elevated firing platform with a central tower then suddenly it makes a lot more sense. It certainly doesn't look any worse than the random "whatever vaguely hill-sized objects I have nearby" terrain or unpainted GW ruins a lot of people use.

The real problem for the players, is that is is obviously WAAC tactics and one person who wants to win the game at the expense of the other player.

What's so WAAC about it? It's hardly something that breaks the game and obviously ruins it for everyone, so your "WAAC" label seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that you personally think it's "not intended".

The way the sky shield is designed, with its four legs, which is fine for a lighter item like a fighter or vehicle, but when you put a heavily armored tower on top of it with nothing to support it in the center, it just look weird. Its kind of like building a house on top of a gazebo. Sure you could make it really awesome with some creative modeling and filling in the base, or make it obviously warp magic, but looking at the combo stock, it looks like the Bastion should fall straight through.

For the WAAC, I was more referencing the Macro Cannon discussion which is someone trying to make a very powerful fortification, even better.

Col_Impact,
Win at All Cost can only be judged case by case, there are too many veritable, but the possibility for broken outcomes can not be ignored. A Macro Cannon on the Sky-Shield would definitely be Win at All Cost behavior by the vast majority of players. A Void Shield Generator on a Sky-Shield would create the same result as a Sky-shield placed right beside it... though that combo raises so many Rule Interaction questions thanks to the whole 'Resolve the shot against this Special Rule' situation.

The question which lingers around putting Terrain on-top of Terrain is simple:
Did the Authors Intend for this combination to be possible or is it an oversight?

I an curious however to something more of a side note then anything of importance:
Do you honestly believe an AV: This-can't-be Building being placed on-top of a Sky-Shield is done for something other then 'Win at All Costs?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
Win at All Cost can only be judged case by case, there are too many veritable, but the possibility for broken outcomes can not be ignored. A Macro Cannon on the Sky-Shield would definitely be Win at All Cost behavior by the vast majority of players. A Void Shield Generator on a Sky-Shield would create the same result as a Sky-shield placed right beside it... though that combo raises so many Rule Interaction questions thanks to the whole 'Resolve the shot against this Special Rule' situation.

The question which lingers around putting Terrain on-top of Terrain is simple:
Did the Authors Intend for this combination to be possible or is it an oversight?

I an curious however to something more of a side note then anything of importance:
Do you honestly believe an AV: This-can't-be Building being placed on-top of a Sky-Shield is done for something other then 'Win at All Costs?'

You are misusing WAAC. A WAAC player is one who does anything, including cheating and trickery, to win.

A competitive player is one who finds the best way to win within the scope of the rules. There is nothing wrong with competitive players.

If the game you come together and play allows Revenant Titans on Skyshields with Invisibility then I expect a competitive player to field it.

Change it to 'That ******* Guy' then, same concept:
Do you honestly believe someone putting an Av: No-*******-way Building on-top of a Sky-shield is not behaving like 'That ******* Guy?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Change it to 'That ******* Guy' then, same concept:
Do you honestly believe someone putting an Av: No-*******-way Building on-top of a Sky-shield is not behaving like 'That ******* Guy?'

If the rules allow it in the game I am playing then no I don't think so at all. He just won the game. I am not going to whine because he won by playing within the scope of the rules.

I find it to be very bad sportsmanship to complain about losing to an opponent who follows the rules and uses a combo that the rules support.

Keep in mind also that if he plays the macro-Cannon tactic against me he will actually lose. The macro-Cannon tactic is very beatable.

Thank you for the answer, as it is pure opinion there is no right or wrong answer.

As for Win / Lose against any tactic; there is too many veritable and lot of chance involved in this game. As someone who has messed around with the concept of 'Pure Building' lists, which are even more crippled as the above combination still allows more then a single non-Building Model, I know that the right Mission Type can be all it takes to determine victory. Given that I run these 'Unglued Lists' without missions, it becomes vastly more difficult to simply follow Tzu on this one.