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.

So, by virtue of there being nothing that disallows it, the following is actually possible:
- Take an imperial strongpoint fortification.
- Take three bastions, a skyshield and an aegis line
- Balance the skyshield on top of two bastions.
- Place the aegis line on top of the shielded skyshield
- Place a third bastion on the skyshield
Suddenly, any troops closely packed on top or inside the bastion have a 4+ cover save and a 4+ invulnerable save! (cause half the shots in the game ignore one of those)
...and completely no line of sight whatsoever

Now, there's one problem with this idiotic and nowhere near competitive scenario: what if one of the two bastions at the bottom of the skyshield explodes? You have to replace it with a crater, but don't have any permission to alter the rest of the terrain. So, what do the rules say about this?

Also the same question for three bastions on top of one another (on a skyshield) (with an honoured imperium on top)

ud claffify the bastion as destroyed but not replace by virtue of this stupidly rediculous set u. hell id pay to see ths with someones nicely painted models on top cos i guaruntee its going to fall and i want to stand and point and laugh at them

Would anyone actually play a game with someone doing this?

I can see a Leman Russ tank placed on a bastion or landing pad - maybe it was airlifted or Chenkov had it dismantled, carried in and reassembled. But buildings on top of buildings?

Brother Michael wrote:
So, by virtue of there being nothing that disallows it, the following is actually possible:
- Take an imperial strongpoint fortification.
- Take three bastions, a skyshield and an aegis line
- Balance the skyshield on top of two bastions.
- Place the aegis line on top of the shielded skyshield
- Place a third bastion on the skyshield
Suddenly, any troops closely packed on top or inside the bastion have a 4+ cover save and a 4+ invulnerable save! (cause half the shots in the game ignore one of those)
...and completely no line of sight whatsoever

Now, there's one problem with this idiotic and nowhere near competitive scenario: what if one of the two bastions at the bottom of the skyshield explodes? You have to replace it with a crater, but don't have any permission to alter the rest of the terrain. So, what do the rules say about this?

Also the same question for three bastions on top of one another (on a skyshield) (with an honoured imperium on top)

We have been down this road before. While humorous it doesnt quite work. Although, blowing up 1 bottom bastion destroys your entire Tree. Terrain is placed on the table not on top of other Terrain.

one prime problem is that the Bastion is not a unit, therefore it may not be granted the Skyshield's invulnerable save. and if someone needs to win at toy soldiers this bad, I'll just let him. fine.

Since we're already talking about deployment shenanigans, is is possible to deploy a skyshield landing pad standing on its side?

As far as Rule as Written are concerned, the rest of the buildings will magically levitate where they are.
If your fortifications lack this option take it up with Game Workshop for not selling physic breaking models.

viewfinder wrote:
one prime problem is that the Bastion is not a unit, therefore it may not be granted the Skyshield's invulnerable save. and if someone needs to win at toy soldiers this bad, I'll just let him. fine.

it counts as a unit, so it would get the invuln save.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
As far as Rule as Written are concerned, the rest of the buildings will magically levitate where they are.
If your fortifications lack this option take it up with Game Workshop for not selling physic breaking models.

or as buildings are models, "any model that cannot move off the battlements are removed as casualties"

destroy the one on the bottom and remove the entire tree.

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
As far as Rule as Written are concerned, the rest of the buildings will magically levitate where they are.
If your fortifications lack this option take it up with Game Workshop for not selling physic breaking models.

or as buildings are models, "any model that cannot move off the battlements are removed as casualties"

destroy the one on the bottom and remove the entire tree.

Buildings are not Models as 40K defines though.

So you do not remove the entire tree if you destroy the bottom one...

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings do not have a unit type and are therefore not models as 40k defines.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
As far as Rule as Written are concerned, the rest of the buildings will magically levitate where they are.
If your fortifications lack this option take it up with Game Workshop for not selling physic breaking models.

or as buildings are models, "any model that cannot move off the battlements are removed as casualties"

destroy the one on the bottom and remove the entire tree.

Buildings are not Models as 40K defines though.

So you do not remove the entire tree if you destroy the bottom one...

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings do not have a unit type and are therefore not models as 40k defines.

and again, that rule is for infantry models.

so stick with the dictionary definition and avoid this black hole of a rules mess that claiming buildings to be "not models" creates. It's RAW and doesn't allow for levitating buildings.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
*stuff*

and again, that rule is for infantry models.

so stick with the dictionary definition and avoid this black hole of a rules mess that claiming buildings to be "not models" creates. It's RAW and doesn't allow for levitating buildings.

But levitating buildings are fun!

Also, to make it abundantly clear, I don't intend to do this in pick-up games (let alone tournament ones), but I just want to do this in a friendly game of Planetstrike once just to see the look on his face, wondering what the hell he just witnessed

the funny thing is GW has had something very similar to this set up on some of the studio tables.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
As far as Rule as Written are concerned, the rest of the buildings will magically levitate where they are.
If your fortifications lack this option take it up with Game Workshop for not selling physic breaking models.

or as buildings are models, "any model that cannot move off the battlements are removed as casualties"

destroy the one on the bottom and remove the entire tree.

Buildings are not Models as 40K defines though.

So you do not remove the entire tree if you destroy the bottom one...

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings do not have a unit type and are therefore not models as 40k defines.

and again, that rule is for infantry models.

so stick with the dictionary definition and avoid this black hole of a rules mess that claiming buildings to be "not models" creates. It's RAW and doesn't allow for levitating buildings.

It is not just for Infantry models, it is for Every model...

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

Note "Every model has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3) and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

So we know that Everything that is classified as a model in 40k will have at least two things:

1) a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.

2) a unit type

Please refrain from calling terrain [Models], as Buildings and Fortifications are terrain and lack a unit type.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
As far as Rule as Written are concerned, the rest of the buildings will magically levitate where they are.
If your fortifications lack this option take it up with Game Workshop for not selling physic breaking models.

or as buildings are models, "any model that cannot move off the battlements are removed as casualties"

destroy the one on the bottom and remove the entire tree.

Buildings are not Models as 40K defines though.

So you do not remove the entire tree if you destroy the bottom one...

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings do not have a unit type and are therefore not models as 40k defines.

and again, that rule is for infantry models.

so stick with the dictionary definition and avoid this black hole of a rules mess that claiming buildings to be "not models" creates. It's RAW and doesn't allow for levitating buildings.

It is not just for Infantry models, it is for Every model...

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

Note "Every model has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3) and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

So we know that Everything that is classified as a model in 40k will have at least two things:

1) a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.

2) a unit type

Please refrain from calling terrain [Models], as Buildings and Fortifications are terrain and lack a unit type.

let me quote you for a second:

They tell you it can be shot, so it essentially acts like a model for that shooting attack, if it didn't you would never be able to shoot it at all because "All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (13)

the rules you quote are the basic rules for infantry models. Now if we look at the problems that saying a bastion is not a model because it's not a infantry model we can clearly see that is a horrible way to base that rule. It leads to floating terrain models, and quad guns that can never die.

You yourself admit it acts like a model, then you complain about it being called a model, while treating it just like one.

Clearly it's a citadel miniature and a model, and this doesn't create any rule problems like your assertion does.

Just because all infantry models need a profile and a unit type, does not mean that is the only usage of the word model through the rules.

Christ you two, don't start this damn argument again, please.

The problem is you must place terrain on the table, not on top of other terrain. Nothing else matters in this discussion.

That is true DJGietzen, some people omit that rule so they can combine terrain so it is more interesting, but by the rules, they have to be physically placed on the table.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The problem is you must place terrain on the table, not on top of other terrain. Nothing else matters in this discussion.

The problem with that is, when you deep strike, you also place a model on the table.

And you can place a model on the skyshield when he deep strikes.

so on the skyshield is also on the table.

the only way to prevent stacking is to focus on the word "contact" the fortifications must be placed in contact. just like when you assault a vehicle, you place your models in contact with the hull.

Does this mean you can place your models all over the top of the vehicle being assaulted? or for the ADL did contact mean you can stack all the pieces into one large vertical stack?

contact seems to mean b2b in the rules, or horizontally, not vertically.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the rules you quote are the basic rules for infantry models. Now if we look at the problems that saying a bastion is not a model because it's not a infantry model we can clearly see that is a horrible way to base that rule. It leads to floating terrain models, and quad guns that can never die.

You yourself admit it acts like a model, then you complain about it being called a model, while treating it just like one.

Clearly it's a citadel miniature and a model, and this doesn't create any rule problems like your assertion does.

Just because all infantry models need a profile and a unit type, does not mean that is the only usage of the word model through the rules.

It acts like a model when being shot at, buildings have to act like units otherwise they would never be able to roll armor pen against them, but not any other time.

Therefore a Building/Fortification is not a model as it lacks a unit type.

Please do not tell people that a Building/Fortification is a model as that is completely and utterly false.

As above. Sirlynchmob is apparently unable to read "every model" as anything other than "every infantry model".....

Nos and DR have it.

Yeah, no permission to do any of this stuff. If you could do this, I could have squad members stand on each other too.

I'm struggling to type much else with out making it sound like a personal attack, so we'll leave it at this

 Lobukia wrote:
Nos and DR have it.

Yeah, no permission to do any of this stuff. If you could do this, I could have squad members stand on each other too.

I'm struggling to type much else with out making it sound like a personal attack, so we'll leave it at this

But DR is for building stacking,

and you say buildings have no permission to stack.

You have the right of this, DR doesn't.

Nos could be pro stacking as well, but he hasn't posted on topic yet to be sure.