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.

Allrighty, I set up a game yesterday with a standard building in the middle of the map. I was using the Imperial Bastion building. I didn't consider the problems that could arise, so I placed an objective flag on top of said building. Intention was to embark into the bastion to hold it, but I didn't point that out to the players, so they treated it as an objective on top of the bastion. It was a cutthroat fight with 2 objectives held on each side at the beginning of turn 5 with nobody holding the middle objective. Then the orc player ran his truck in front of the door to block it as he had no troops left in the area. The Eldar opponent used his jet bikes to land on top of the bastion to claim the objective placed there (after rolling his dangerous terrain tests).
Question 1: Can you embark into a building with troops on top of it(not embarked, but placed on impassible terrain). I know you can't land with jet bikes on top of a building containing troops, but could said troops embark into the bastion? The problem happened during turn 6 when the orc truck moved away from the door to let his troops try enter. I hadn't considered the problem, and took the blame for not stating the facts around the objective placement at battle start, but would like to get some inputs for further games. In addition, the Orc player wanted to contest the objective, but the Eldar claimed he was more than 3" away from the flag. Causes all sorts of problems tactic wise if the bastion can't be embarked into if troops on top of it.(Can't shoot at a building with no troops in it)

Question 2: The Orcs ally played gray knights and lost half his jump infantry from shunting into a ruin as a scout move at the start of the game. Does shunting count as jump-pack for the purpose of taking dangerous terrain tests? I know this has been discussed before, but couldn't find an answer on dakkadakka. Being a "game master" in such games is tricky at times ;-)

Thanks in advance
Sqroot

Q1 - this came up in another thread recently. Models on top of a building are considered to be embarked. The jetbikes couldn't go there.

Q2 - "units with personal teleporters are jump infantry".C:GK P28

Actually, the rulebooks seems to be implying that they don't have to take a DT test, as they're not moving using their Jump Infantry move, but rather a different type of move altogether. I'd expect this issue to be FAQ'd though, one way or another.

As to Q1. Think you misunderstood what i wrote, sorry about that:-)
I meant, the building is unoccupied, but with skimmers parked on top of it, can infantery then "embark"/enter this building. i know the skimmer may not land on occupied building, but what about the other way round?

For Q2 i guess we'll just wait for FAQ as with much else concerning GK

IG-Sqroot wrote:As to Q1. Think you misunderstood what i wrote, sorry about that:-)
I meant, the building is unoccupied, but with skimmers parked on top of it, can infantery then "embark"/enter this building. i know the skimmer may not land on occupied building, but what about the other way round?

The rules don't actually cover it. It's probably fairly safe to assume that the rule is supposed to work both ways, but the actual wording falls short of it.

1) Enemy units could not embark, as they would come within 1" of the enemy which isnt allowed. Embarking is movement, so is prohibited

Buildings in 40k are essentially immobile vehicles. Troops on top of the building are in the building, but may shoot out and the building is now open topped.

-In theory, it's easy if you think of it that way. The jetbikes couldn't land on it, you can only enter via the one door/hatch, unless you specified an opening on the top. And being within 3" of any part of the building would mean you claim/contest the objective.

Theor sucks when it hits reality. We all go back to playing toy soldiers. The jetbikes think they can land on the building, and we all figure you need to enter the building to get the flag, and no one bothers to stay 1" away from it unless assaulting.)

Best thing to do is to state how the building is being played, whether it can be occupied or not, it's armor value, what happens to the objective if it's destroyed, whether you can land on it, assault up the side, where the openings are, and how you claim the objective.

Quick nitpick- IG-SQroot, please be careful to differentiate between Skimmers and Jetbikes. While they have some similarities, they are two different types of units.

----------

Anyway, the problem here seems primarily to arise due to the building having been insufficiently defined/discussed at the start of the game. The rulebook offers two options- buildings which can be entered, and impassible buildings.

If it was a building which could be entered, everyone should have agreed on the AV, exact entry points, firing points, and capacity before the game. In that event, as the others said, the jetbikes couldn't legally have landed on top of it.

If it was an impassible building, the jetbikes could land on top of it (albeit with Dangerous Terrain tests) as could Skimmers or Jump Infantry.

As a general point of practice, I probably wouldn't place an objective on either type of building. Just because it significantly limits what kind of units can contest or hold said objective. Of course that can be fun too, if everyone's up for it.