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.

If the Skyshield is unfurled and I place the initial model from a unit on the edge of the pad, so that while that model is completely on the pad some of the additional models from the unit must be place off the pad, does the unit still avoid scattering?

As far as I know as soon as they are not in contact they automatically suffer a mishap. Look at Deep striking onto a battlement for a full explanation. So no they would not scatter but would suffer a mishap.

Gravmyr wrote:
As far as I know as soon as they are not in contact they automatically suffer a mishap. Look at Deep striking onto a battlement for a full explanation. So no they would not scatter but would suffer a mishap.

It's not a separate level/floor like a ruin though. And it's certainly not a battlement.

As for the scatter question, it wouldn't scatter. Nor would they suffer a mishap as they do not meet any requirements to suffer a mishap.

All that scattering cares about is the initial model, if that model is on the Pad then there is no scatter.

However, the way you have placed them means you will be unable to place all the other models in BtB which would be illegal.

 Grey Templar wrote:
All that scattering cares about is the initial model, if that model is on the Pad then there is no scatter.

However, the way you have placed them means you will be unable to place all the other models in BtB which would be illegal.

So you have to be able to get on the landing pad to assault models that are on the very edge of it? I'm only talking about the initial charger that is required to get into base contact.

It's my understanding that discussions on this board have lead to decide that you can be right up against the edge and still be in base contact with those on the skyshield.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
All that scattering cares about is the initial model, if that model is on the Pad then there is no scatter.

However, the way you have placed them means you will be unable to place all the other models in BtB which would be illegal.

So you have to be able to get on the landing pad to assault models that are on the very edge of it? I'm only talking about the initial charger that is required to get into base contact.

It's my understanding that discussions on this board have lead to decide that you can be right up against the edge and still be in base contact with those on the skyshield.

Technically yes, although WMS might apply to the situation.

But for Deep Striking, you definitly have to be in BtB and if you are on the ground and not on top you are definitly not in BtB.

Don't ask me what happens in this situation, I'm not sure what you would do with it. But I do know it will be illegal as per RAW.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
All that scattering cares about is the initial model, if that model is on the Pad then there is no scatter.

However, the way you have placed them means you will be unable to place all the other models in BtB which would be illegal.

So you have to be able to get on the landing pad to assault models that are on the very edge of it? I'm only talking about the initial charger that is required to get into base contact.

It's my understanding that discussions on this board have lead to decide that you can be right up against the edge and still be in base contact with those on the skyshield.

Technically yes, although WMS might apply to the situation.

But for Deep Striking, you definitly have to be in BtB and if you are on the ground and not on top you are definitly not in BtB.

Don't ask me what happens in this situation, I'm not sure what you would do with it. But I do know it will be illegal as per RAW.

Then how is it any different if you DS into a crater and you can't place the models in B2B due to height differences there (which with some terrain pieces, supplied by GW, is entirely possible). That's the biggest issue here, it's not a different level or anything it's just a terrain piece with varying heights, not different levels.

I'm with you on not knowing really what to do in this situation (though probably requiring a dangerous terrain check at least). From a rules perspective I don't see anything that 'should' prevent it. From a gaming "you're really riding the fine line" perspective, I think I'd at least ask for my opponent to reconsider.

Its different from a Crater, which is covered by WMS.

In the case of the Skyshield, there is actually no place to put the model. WMS only covers situations where the model can be placed but it would be in danger of falling.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its different from a Crater, which is covered by WMS.

In the case of the Skyshield, there is actually no place to put the model. WMS only covers situations where the model can be placed but it would be in danger of falling.

No no, I'm not talking about WMS at all, I'm referencing the areas of a crater or other terrain feature where two models would not be able to get into b2b with another. Let's take for example, http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1095502, these craters. If you look at the one in the middle and see on the right hand side how there is a ledge with a sheer drop? Let's say your initial deep striker landed there, on the higher edge. Or lower, I guess it doesn't matter. Well, even with WMS there's no way he would be in base to base a model on the higher/lower part (depending where he landed). Do you see what I'm getting at here?

WMS has nothing to do with it. Also, I wouldn't go by how some on the forum play the skyshield because they make plenty of assumptions, one of which is that units can selectively levitate.

There is a distinct difference in height differences for both the Skyshield and the crater. The Skyshield, as a fortification, has different height levels that infantry need to spend 3" movement to traverse vertically. That doesn't apply to craters.

The deepstrike rule states that if at any point in time during the deployment of deepstrike formation part of the unit cannot be placed, they suffer a mishap.

And PS, I HAVE deepstriked onto those craters before and you CAN place 40mm bases in BtB, deepstrike formation on them.

 Crablezworth wrote:
WMS has nothing to do with it. Also, I wouldn't go by how some on the forum play the skyshield because they make plenty of assumptions, one of which is that units can selectively levitate.

...because the rules allow you to move onto the pad with a difficult terrain test. No assumption required, just following the rules you dont like.

And yet that tells you nothing about the path a model has to/should to take(something that probably should be discussed and agreed to pre game), so you get all forms of ridiculous assumptions in the absence of that discussion. If you're not gonna flesh things out pre game the rules will not save you.

Sorry it wasn't in the BRB but in the FAQ:

Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlementsby Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

Under Deep Strike it states that all models placed after the first must be in base contact with the first model till a complete circle is formed then a further circle is formed which must be in base contact with the first circle and so on and so fourth. A model on the ground and not on the Skyshield is not in base contact and cannot be placed.

A skyshield is not a battlements. The rule set for it do not take into account alot of possible scenarios. You can have models on top of the pad and others below and be in coherency.

Just clarifying the ruling I was looking at.

Coherency or not they are not in B2B. If you count both level to be equal then you have an issue with someone placing models under the Skyshield causing all models DSing onto the Skyshield to suffer mishaps as they are landing on top of another model.

Fragile wrote:
A skyshield is not a battlements. The rule set for it do not take into account alot of possible scenarios. You can have models on top of the pad and others below and be in coherency.

Coherency is not a requirement (for deep strike). BtB is.

Fragile wrote:
A skyshield is not a battlements. The rule set for it do not take into account alot of possible scenarios. You can have models on top of the pad and others below and be in coherency.

If the top of a skyshield isn't a battlement, what is it? It looks pretty clear to me like battlements for the Fortress of Redemption or Bastion, since when closed you get the invul cover save as if it were one. They aren't "inside" the building persay, since they aren't limited to X number of firing ports like normal fortifications would.

Deepstrike's rulings are pretty clear, if the models aren't in base-to-base contact, it's a mishap. Nowhere does it say that there are specific exceptions to this rule.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Fragile wrote:
A skyshield is not a battlements. The rule set for it do not take into account alot of possible scenarios. You can have models on top of the pad and others below and be in coherency.

If the top of a skyshield isn't a battlement, what is it?

It is the top of a skyshield landing pad.

Maybe I do not understand the question.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And yet that tells you nothing about the path a model has to/should to take(something that probably should be discussed and agreed to pre game), so you get all forms of ridiculous assumptions in the absence of that discussion. If you're not gonna flesh things out pre game the rules will not save you.

If you dont agree to alter the rules before the game, then you use the rules as they are presented - which is that you can move onto the pad with a DT test. Nothing more, nothing less

You are the only one assuming anything

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
And yet that tells you nothing about the path a model has to/should to take(something that probably should be discussed and agreed to pre game), so you get all forms of ridiculous assumptions in the absence of that discussion. If you're not gonna flesh things out pre game the rules will not save you.

If you dont agree to alter the rules before the game, then you use the rules as they are presented - which is that you can move onto the pad with a DT test. Nothing more, nothing less

You are the only one assuming anything

Or you choose not to play because your opponent's lack of specificity in terms of defining terrain is obviously indicative that they are a dangerously insane human being and probably not enjoyable to play. It's not like you can have much of a raw discussion about this seeing as you all have to make up rules to make anything work because of our old friend mr. physics. That's why its better to flesh things out, hell, it's probably better to treat it as a ruin because you'll save some headache, and hell, people are already pretending it works that way anyway.



Here, read this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg 91

What Sort of Game?

“Before you start playing, it's always worth taking the time to talk to your opponent about the terrain you're using. You want to be sure that you’re both clear on how you’re going to treat all your terrain pieces before the game starts – it’s that much harder to be objective once the bullets start flying. This is especially true of scenery pieces that could, conceivably, have two or more rule sets applied to them: one man’s ruin is often another man’s building. Is that a piece of mysterious archeotech, or just an unusually decorative piece of impassable terrain? Just what kind of cover save will that part mesh, part stone barricade offer to troops behind it? There’s no right or wrong in such decisions, provided that you both agree. Remember: there’s no such thing as a “standard” Warhammer 40,000 game, because there’s not really any such thing as a “standard” Warhammer 40,000 gamer.

For example, if you have any ruins, you should agree exactly how to use them. One player may prefer to treat them simply as area terrain so that he can concentrate on his grand plan, while another may like the additional storytelling that is created if the models cannot move through solid walls or climb up levels without stairs or ladders. Yet another player may have written a houses rule where an elevator is activated if you also have models next to the power generator on the others side of the table! No single approach is right or wrong, as long as both players have agreed before the game.

You’ll sometimes find that some structures won’t have obvious doors or stairs allowing access, but you wish to use them as buildings, rather than impassable terrain. For example, we’ve got some ork buildings that include watchtowers that lack any visible method for actually getting up to the watchtowrs! In cases like this, the players might agree to assume that there are internal doors or ladders that allow access to the building.”


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are charging up onto the Skyshield, you roll for difficult terrain, and yes you have to get enough on your 2D6 roll to cover that 3" height off the ground (just like if you are charging up a rocky hill or something. So if the unit makes the charge range, so long as that 1 model reaches you get into the assault. And if other dudes in the charging unit have the distance (vertical and horizontal) to make it into B2B contact with the defenders on the Pad but they can't be placed, then they should be assumed to be engaged in combat as well.

As for Deepstriking, the scattering is nullified by placing the first center model on the Pad, but you have to put them in that B2B circle per the Deepstrike rules. Why anyone would want to place the Deepstriking model on the edge like that, I cannot guess. But I do know that Daemons should not waste their points on a Skyshield, just buy 3 icons (in case anyone was wondering about that).....

Crable - no matter how many times you pretend differently, the rules already cover this - a DT i all that is required to move onto the skyshield. I see your "Mr Physics" and raise you "seriously, you are bringing physics into a tabletop game where you abstract shooting?"

I assume you actually use a proper physics model for shooting? No? Then why are you insisting that another abstraction must have afull physics model? Inconsistency is amusing there.

You have a continued blind spot over this very, very simple rule.

I find "just getting on with the game, using the rules they give you" is far from "dangerously insane" , but each to their own, mad mad world.

Honestly it's another case of poor writing for GW and that is all. There are trap doors with ladders. You treat them basically like climbing in a ruin. Live with it. Our group doesn't allow vehicles to to get onto the Skyshield but that is a house rule.

Gravmyr wrote:
Honestly it's another case of poor writing for GW and that is all. There are trap doors with ladders. You treat them basically like climbing in a ruin.

Well, yes and no... it's more or less the same as climbing a ruin, but without the restriction on which units can do it, or the rule preventing you from stopping partway between levels. And has nothing whatsoever to do with the ladders on the support struts - they're just for show.

 Enigwolf wrote:
There is a distinct difference in height differences for both the Skyshield and the crater. The Skyshield, as a fortification, has different height levels that infantry need to spend 3" movement to traverse vertically. That doesn't apply to craters.

The deepstrike rule states that if at any point in time during the deployment of deepstrike formation part of the unit cannot be placed, they suffer a mishap.

And PS, I HAVE deepstriked onto those craters before and you CAN place 40mm bases in BtB, deepstrike formation on them.

A skyshield landing pad is not a ruin.

I'm not saying you "can't" deepstrike into those craters, I'm saying there are other situations where terrain has height differences that would physically prevent BtB contact even though they should "technically" be in BtB.

So, do you measure you're up/down movement in craters and other terrain as well (which would shorten your distance traveled)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
If you are charging up onto the Skyshield, you roll for difficult terrain, and yes you have to get enough on your 2D6 roll to cover that 3" height off the ground (just like if you are charging up a rocky hill or something. So if the unit makes the charge range, so long as that 1 model reaches you get into the assault. And if other dudes in the charging unit have the distance (vertical and horizontal) to make it into B2B contact with the defenders on the Pad but they can't be placed, then they should be assumed to be engaged in combat as well.

As for Deepstriking, the scattering is nullified by placing the first center model on the Pad, but you have to put them in that B2B circle per the Deepstrike rules. Why anyone would want to place the Deepstriking model on the edge like that, I cannot guess. But I do know that Daemons should not waste their points on a Skyshield, just buy 3 icons (in case anyone was wondering about that).....

So you're saying that if a player has models completely around the edge (lets say all their bases are just slightly hanging off the edge) of the skyshield then they would not be able to be assaulted by non-jump infantry?

Kevin949 wrote:So you're saying that if a player has models completely around the edge (lets say all their bases are just slightly hanging off the edge) of the skyshield then they would not be able to be assaulted by non-jump infantry?

Page 101 of the BRB deals with this scenario.

As has been stated before, if you can't get all models in a deepstriking unit into base-to-base contact, you suffer a mishap.

 plus1jeremy wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:So you're saying that if a player has models completely around the edge (lets say all their bases are just slightly hanging off the edge) of the skyshield then they would not be able to be assaulted by non-jump infantry?

Page 101 of the BRB deals with this scenario.

As has been stated before, if you can't get all models in a deepstriking unit into base-to-base contact, you suffer a mishap.

Again, the skyshield is not a ruin, nor is it a building. It is a piece of terrain with no real classification.

Doesn't matter. If you can't get all models in a deepstriking unit into base-to-base contact, you suffer a mishap. That rule makes no reference to what kind of terrain the unit is landing on.

 plus1jeremy wrote:
Doesn't matter. If you can't get all models in a deepstriking unit into base-to-base contact, you suffer a mishap. That rule makes no reference to what kind of terrain the unit is landing on.

Again, by making that assertion you are opening the viability of making units un-assaultable in certain situations using GW's gammy writing.