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.

Hi everyone, i was wondering if somebody could clear this up for me:

If i take a fortification network (meaning fortifications can be placed within contact of each other) then if i put a bastion on top of a skyshield landing pad, does the bastion gain a 4++ for being on the pad?

Thanks in advance.

Honestly it's bad enough that the aircraft landing pad has never been used to land an aircraft, now buildings are being stuck on top!

This really boils down to "can buildings take an invulnerable save".

I'm no big hater of 40k, but this thread pretty much sums up how flawed the rules are.

Grendel083,
Stronghold Assault did help in that regard, you can now start with an aircraft on the pad as if it had just landed or was about to take off.

Though, it did make it possible to put a building on top of the sky-shield....

The Shielded effect of the landing pad says units on top of it gain a 4++ save, the Bastion is not a unit, it is a fortification/terrain piece. So while for whatever ridiculous reason you can put a bastion on top of the landing pad it gets no benefit from the landing pads rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
Grendel083,
Stronghold Assault did help in that regard, you can now start with an aircraft on the pad as if it had just landed or was about to take off.

Though, it did make it possible to put a building on top of the sky-shield....

Oh I know. But before the removal of Deep Strike from all flyers, it was still just full of tanks and battlesuits.
Now it'll be full of tanks, battlesuits and buildings.

I do have to admit, why doesn't it have a rule that states something along the line of:
Flyers can deploy onto the shield the turn the arrive from reserve, should they choose to do so they must remain in hover mode for the duration of the turn.

Though from a better Writer then I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CrashCanuck,
It is nice that they are not models, isn't it?

Ok, thanks guys, no invun for the bastion.

I wanted to put a bastion on top the skyshield to make a fortress type looking thing (converted, etc) for a nurgle list im making (Epidemius'es fortress!).

Take pictures after it is done, and may I suggest some ramps or other clearly defined access points because the sky-shields base model so desperately needs them!

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The Shielded effect of the landing pad says units on top of it gain a 4++ save, the Bastion is not a unit, it is a fortification/terrain piece. So while for whatever ridiculous reason you can put a bastion on top of the landing pad it gets no benefit from the landing pads rules.

It is treated exactly like other units in your army though.

do other units get invuln saves on it? Yep. There's your answer




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I do have to admit, why doesn't it have a rule that states something along the line of:
Flyers can deploy onto the shield the turn the arrive from reserve, should they choose to do so they must remain in hover mode for the duration of the turn.

Though from a better Writer then I.

They have that rule in strongholds though. you can start a flier on the skyshield if you buy the upgrade. it just has to stay in hover mode during the first game turn.

SirLynchMob,
I have already brought up this rule for Grendel083 prior, to show that they are least did something to make it sort of like a landing pad, and we moved on past this point. The comment you quoted was directly in relation to the humorous way that Suits, Tanks and other Deep Striking models have permission to land on it during the game where fliers can not. The line you quoted was designed to try and inject a way for flyers to use the landing pad even though they now lack the deep strike rule. Though, personally, a flyer could zoom onto the table more effectively then trying to land on the thing but it is the thought that counts....

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The Shielded effect of the landing pad says units on top of it gain a 4++ save, the Bastion is not a unit, it is a fortification/terrain piece. So while for whatever ridiculous reason you can put a bastion on top of the landing pad it gets no benefit from the landing pads rules.

It is treated exactly like other units in your army though.

do other units get invuln saves on it? Yep. There's your answer.

A fortification is not "treated exactly like other units in your army"

It is terrain and not a unit and as such does not get an Invuln save from a Skyshield.

DeathReaper,
There are words in Stronghold Assault that do say something along the lines of "treated exactly like other units in your army." They make up about half of a sentence in fact, of which the first half of the sentence states something along the lines of: "In many regards." This would mean that the terrain piece in question is treated like a unit in the army, but clearly in every situation. For this sentence to instruct us that it is a unit in all regards it wouldn't have used the word 'most,' in fact it probably would of used the word all or every. In this case it would seem that it is treated like a unit only when a rule specifically tells us to do something in the same way we would against a unit, which the Rules in question do quite a lot. In fact, I would state as an educated guess that a captured building is treated like an unit a good 90% of the time now, defiantly 'most' worthy.

I know, round about way to support your post, but I thought you would find it interesting how reading the entire sentence completely changes the context.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The Shielded effect of the landing pad says units on top of it gain a 4++ save, the Bastion is not a unit, it is a fortification/terrain piece. So while for whatever ridiculous reason you can put a bastion on top of the landing pad it gets no benefit from the landing pads rules.

It is treated exactly like other units in your army though.

do other units get invuln saves on it? Yep. There's your answer.

A fortification is not "treated exactly like other units in your army"

It is terrain and not a unit and as such does not get an Invuln save from a Skyshield.

It is now, as we're talking about rules under stronghold assault, then pg 15 applies and "in many respects these buildings function like any other unit in a players army"

so yes buildings are treated like like any other unit in your army.

Except for in the respects that they are not treated like any other unit in your army.

Fragile wrote:
Except for in the respects that they are not treated like any other unit in your army.

The only major difference is they can be captured, can you cite any other difference between a unit and a building?

so given that they are functioning like a unit, the skyshield grants unit's a invuln save. buildings on a skyshield would get a invuln save. qed.

It really comes down to how you want to emphasize "contact" Are you in the group that thinks you can stack parts of the ADL on top of each other?

I would think contact would imply b2b or end to end. Like the wall of martyrs seems to be designed to connect adjacent to each other. But that's just HIWPI based on what I believe RAI to be.

RAW a building on the skyshield would get the invuln.

Could you put a Firestorm nexus on the imperial bastion which is then on the sky shield landing pad and then a wood on top so they all get cover as well as the invun?

Fragile wrote:
Except for in the respects that they are not treated like any other unit in your army.

Exactly.

"in many respects" does not mean in all respects...

Does it say that the terrain gets an invuln save from a skyshield?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Except for in the respects that they are not treated like any other unit in your army.

Exactly.

"in many respects" does not mean in all respects...

Does it say that the terrain gets an invuln save from a skyshield?

another way to say that is:

In this respect it gets an invuln save from a skyshield. of course it's not all, they list one exception.

Contra proferentem

do other units get invuln saves on it? Yep. There's your answer.

A wooded installation wouldn't be that bad.

Except that anything you shoot at would also get a cover save, as you're shooting out of the woods.

If you just had a garden on top, I'd say no, because your model is not in the area terrain (in fact the terrain is in you) therefore you can't get a save from it.

But models on top could! Though the cover from the battlements would be better.

The fact that buildings function like units doesn't mean they are units, they are still terrain pieces.

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The fact that buildings function like units doesn't mean they are units, they are still terrain pieces.

They function like any other unit in your army. do the other units in your army get a invuln save from the sky shield? yep, and that's the answer.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The fact that buildings function like units doesn't mean they are units, they are still terrain pieces.

They function like any other unit in your army. do the other units in your army get a invuln save from the sky shield? yep, and that's the answer.

Does it say that the terrain gets an invuln save from a skyshield?

"in many respects" is just that, many, not all...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The fact that buildings function like units doesn't mean they are units, they are still terrain pieces.

They function like any other unit in your army. do the other units in your army get a invuln save from the sky shield? yep, and that's the answer.

Are other units in your army terrain?

It's a funny troll thread but no you cannot stack fortifications on top of eachother to combine there rules.

 Elgrun wrote:
It's a funny troll thread but no you cannot stack fortifications on top of eachother to combine there rules.

Its for a nurgle fortress conversion...

Cool then why are you saying you want a 4++?

Because i dont like playing ineffective lists (but not competitive ones either) and a bastion with 4++ would be pretty good

He didn't say he wanted a 4++. I imagine that he's going to do the conversion regardless of the answer and is just curious to know how the fortifications interact when stacked.

 CrashCanuck wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
The fact that buildings function like units doesn't mean they are units, they are still terrain pieces.

They function like any other unit in your army. do the other units in your army get a invuln save from the sky shield? yep, and that's the answer.

Are other units in your army terrain?

It's not just terrain though is it?

You shoot at it as if it is a vehicle (pg 93). You can now legally nominate to shoot at it, as it's now also a enemy unit (shooting sequence pg 12) (SH pg 15)

therefore when you shoot at one on a bastion you are shooting at a enemy vehicle unit, not terrain. Therefore it get's it's 4++.

It's really this simple.

It would be easier to argue against them stacking then to deny them the invuln save once it's been allowed.