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'm more worried about not having one of those awesome warlord traits than opponents leaving because my army is lead by Harold.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It's just "terrain" you can go up and over it by RAW, tho it'll usually be easier to go around .
Yes you can make it your immortal warlord, but you probably shouldn't if you want any opponents.

So, if I have two infinitely tall buildings with a gap between them, and I place my warlord (the tree) an inch away from each building, effectively filling the gap, can a unit with base thicker than an inch walk through that gap now? Or will they have to walk over the tree? It's tall man, that's like a 4" vertical, so probably 8" to walk up and down, and the base is 3" wide at its thinnest, that's like an 11" move without fly.

What about a vehicle? Are they allow to drive over trees? What if I stack two trees next to each other, can I stop the movement of 60mm bases through that area? The trees are pretty messy, you wouldn't easily squeeze a model through them.

I want to manipulate the battlefield with these trees in a useful way, but it is not obvious where to point in the rule book when my opponent starts complaining.

Core rules for moving. There's nothing more than that needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"What about a vehicle". Vehicles don't have special movement rules in 8th. All models are the same. (Except flyers, and FLY )

So this one is actually really interesting, because the answe is no, they can not hold objectives.

They can however contest zones. In stronghold assault a lot of missions read that in order for the attacker to control a zone there must be no enemy models in the zone, the building unless destroyed or captures is an enemy model that can contest a zone.

Where is it written they can't contest objectives? Thanks.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Where is it written they can't contest objectives? Thanks.

There’s no such rule in 8th. There was in 7th, and assuming it carries over is just edition lag.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Where is it written they can't contest objectives? Thanks.

Their pestilent garden rules says they are not considered enemy nor friendly models for any reason, which includes capturing objectives or zones.

 Jidmah wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Where is it written they can't contest objectives? Thanks.

Their pestilent garden rules says they are not considered enemy nor friendly models for any reason, which includes capturing objectives or zones.

Yes quite, but that's only for fortifications which become terrain after being deployed. The ones that don't (e.g bastions) don't seem to have any rule preventing claiming of objectives.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Where is it written they can't contest objectives? Thanks.

Their pestilent garden rules says they are not considered enemy nor friendly models for any reason, which includes capturing objectives or zones.

Yes quite, but that's only for fortifications which become terrain after being deployed. The ones that don't (e.g bastions) don't seem to have any rule preventing claiming of objectives.

The boots on the ground errata did.

Rulebook FAQ wrote: If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory. When determining if a player has any units on the battlefield, do not include any units with the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield Role unless they have a unit embarked inside – even the most formidable bastion requires a garrison if it is to pose a threat.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Where is it written they can't contest objectives? Thanks.

Their pestilent garden rules says they are not considered enemy nor friendly models for any reason, which includes capturing objectives or zones.

Yes quite, but that's only for fortifications which become terrain after being deployed. The ones that don't (e.g bastions) don't seem to have any rule preventing claiming of objectives.

The boots on the ground errata did.

Rulebook FAQ wrote: If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory. When determining if a player has any units on the battlefield, do not include any units with the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield Role unless they have a unit embarked inside – even the most formidable bastion requires a garrison if it is to pose a threat.

Did I misread that, because I do not see where it says that a Bastion can not claim objectives.

I see that the units with the Fortification Battlefield Role do not count for the purposes of "no models on the battlefield" but it does not take away their ability to claim objectives.

Unless I missed a part of that FAQ. (I see the fluff about combat airspace and holding territory, but surely flyers can claim objectives right?)

Yeah my bad, got the issue mixed up in my head.

I think RaW they can claim objectives. Just another thing pointed out day 0 that GW haven't fixed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yeah my bad, got the issue mixed up in my head.

I think RaW they can claim objectives. Just another thing pointed out day 0 that GW haven't fixed.

Wait, I though RAW was RAI??? Or is it only when that supports your opinion?

Jesting aside, as I’ve posted before, a fortification *absolutely should* be able to hold an objective. That’s the actual point of a fortification. They been built for centuries to defend key locations. In-game they can be destroyed like any other unit. So go destroy them and stop claiming it’s ridiculous a giant building with guns should be able to defend an area... or just walk one Gretchin up to it and claim it via Objective Secured.

Or two models without objective secured that outnumber the one bastion.

Or rules that prevents the bastion being centered over the objective restricting the opponent from getting within 3" of it.

The bastion is 5.5" by 5.5". Your opponent cannot prevent you from getting within 3" of the objective.

 deviantduck wrote:
Or rules that prevents the bastion being centered over the objective restricting the opponent from getting within 3" of it.

Unless the objective is a model itself.

 Jidmah wrote:
The bastion is 5.5" by 5.5". Your opponent cannot prevent you from getting within 3" of the objective.

Plus the 1" bubble you have to have to stay away from enemy models making your bastion 7.5 x 7.5. So unless they charge your bastion, they can't get within 3.5".

 doctortom wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
Or rules that prevents the bastion being centered over the objective restricting the opponent from getting within 3" of it.

Unless the objective is a model itself.

My bastion has no base and is hollow. It could fit over a demon prince.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The bastion is 5.5" by 5.5". Your opponent cannot prevent you from getting within 3" of the objective.

Plus the 1" bubble you have to have to stay away from enemy models making your bastion 7.5 x 7.5. So unless they charge your bastion, they can't get within 3.5".

I fail to see your point. It's literally the same for every other unit trying to defend the objective.