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.

Just a quick question, page 92 of the BRB states they use aspects of the transport rules but the only difference being ...

They way it's worded, it's hard to see if they are transport vehicles or not, at least for me, thus I need input. Thanks

No, they are not, they just have some rule similarities.

Sigh...

Buildings and transports share the ability to have models embark into them.

 juraigamer wrote:
Just a quick question, page 92 of the BRB states they use aspects of the transport rules but the only difference being ...

They way it's worded, it's hard to see if they are transport vehicles or not, at least for me, thus I need input. Thanks

Is their a specific overlapping rule that's causing problems?

They function in many ways LIKE transport vehicles, but are not actually vehicles.

What's the question/interaction that's causing confusion?

The problem is the power field generator for dark angels. Basically if a bastion is a transport vehicle, it doesn't work, if it does, well crap.

For the purposes of working out effects from embarked units, I would be applying the transport rules.

I think he's asking if the Bastion (or FOR for that matter) would get a 4++ save from a model inside with a PFG.

In short, no. They are terrain, not units or models.

IMO of course

 insaniak wrote:
For the purposes of working out effects from embarked units, I would be applying the transport rules.

Right. Of course, the Powerfield Generator has a FAQ that says if it's embarked upon a transport vehicle, it only protects the embarked unit. Given that embarking in a building is treated as embarking into a transport vehicle, this FAQ would seem to apply.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180051a_Dark_Angels_v1.1A_APRIL13.pdf

 Mannahnin wrote:
Right. Of course, the Powerfield Generator has a FAQ that says if it's embarked upon a transport vehicle, it only protects the embarked unit. Given that embarking in a building is treated as embarking into a transport vehicle, this FAQ would seem to apply.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180051a_Dark_Angels_v1.1A_APRIL13.pdf

On p.2 of the FAQ it states "Page 64 – Power Field Generator Add “If the bearer is embarked upon a Transport vehicle, the powerfield’s effects only apply to models embarked upon that vehicle” "

That would imply to me that the powerfield actually does not apply to the vehicle which is a big difference from the way the DA player at my FLGS has been running his librarian (his take was that the librarian w/ PFG grants his transport (including a LR) and everything w/in 6" of the transport the 4++).

It's issues like this (and a related one where a Tau player used a single markerlight (I think) to erase cover saves -- it's possible that my memory on this one is wrong) that sometimes drive me a bit mad about GW and their method of releasing rules in expensive codexes ... most players won't have all the codexes of every army so (being charitable to the folks at my local store) if a player interprets a rule wrong, how is their opponent to know?

You just have to read the relevant rules and figure it out. And be prepared to bring the relevant rules to the game if and when it matters.

In fact, the way your opponent was playing it (protecting the squad, the transport, AND every model within 6" of the transport) was 100% the way the rules work, until GW decided they didn't want three or more Land Raiders running around the table with 4++ saves, and changed it in the FAQ.

Thus creating extra confusion, since an embarked KFF does project from the vehicle, but a power field doesn't... for no reason other than 'because'.

Because Ork

Orks iz like that...

 insaniak wrote:
Thus creating extra confusion, since an embarked KFF does project from the vehicle, but a power field doesn't... for no reason other than 'because'.

"Because" there's a big difference between an AV 14/12/10 open-topped vehicle with a 5+ cover save and an AV 14/14/14 closed-top vehicle with a 4+ invulnerable save, most likely.

Oh, I get the balance issue behind it... It just makes no sense from a games mechanic standpoint.

 insaniak wrote:
Oh, I get the balance issue behind it... It just makes no sense from a games mechanic standpoint.

Balance is a games mechanic, surely?

HIWPI, no 4++ inside a bastion. As you said, it's unreasonable.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Oh, I get the balance issue behind it... It just makes no sense from a games mechanic standpoint.

Balance is a games mechanic, surely?

Not really. Balance is something you do within the limitations of the game mechanics. Mechanics should be consistent across the board, otherwise the point of a particular mechanic goes away.

GW has a poor track record of following their own rules and instead making exceptions everywhere, when they really should just rewrite the rules so everything works smoothly.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Balance is a games mechanic, surely?

No, balance is a goal that is achieved through rules working in synergy, not a mechanic in itself.

The point is that we have two rules that as written function identically... except that one bubbles out from a vehicle and one doesn't. And this happens not because of different wording in the rules, but because GW has released an FAQ that says so.

This is shoddy games design. If rule 1 says 'X' and rule 2 says 'X' then they should both do the same thing. If them doing the same thing leads to an imbalance in the game, then you need to change one of those rules, not just explain that it works differently for no apparent reason other than 'If it worked the way it says it works, that would be broken...'