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.

JinxDragon wrote:
In most regards, not in all regards.

In most, including getting a invuln save if it's on a skyshield.

Because just saying most, not all does not mean based on your opinion. Where is the list of what is granted and what is not? it's a vague permission saying "in many respects, these buildings function like any other unit in a players army"

The litmus test here surely is:

"how does it work with all other units"

do all other units on a skyshield get a invuln save? yep.

We've already establish 2 things that being a unit does not allow buildings to do it. If it doesn't create any rules conflicts then you treat it like a unit in your army.

Oh fun thought, my KFF can now protect my bastion I really love Orks.

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
In most regards, not in all regards.

In most, including getting a invuln save if it's on a skyshield.

Citation needed because I can not find the rule that says this.

Unbelievable there are two of these types of topics going around.

You can't stack fortifications on top of eachother.

It's interesting that for an example you've picked the least ridiculous version , try wrapping your head around 4 fortress's of redemption on top of eachother.

If you really think you need this to be faq'd then your wasting everyone's time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
In most regards, not in all regards.

In most, including getting a invuln save if it's on a skyshield.

Citation needed because I can not find the rule that says this.

You're the one who thinks they can stack, so you should accept the outcome from that.

so what does "in many respects, these buildings function like any other unit in a players army" mean to you?

let me guess: Many respects to you mean "none"

RAW buildings are units, when any odd issues comes up just ask well how does it work with other units in your army and you'll find the answer.

Permission has been granted, where's the denial?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
In most regards, not in all regards.

In most, including getting a invuln save if it's on a skyshield.

Citation needed because I can not find the rule that says this.

so what does "in many respects, these buildings function like any other unit in a players army" mean to you?

In many respects means in the ways listed.

But to claim a Invuln save from a skyshield, when it is not a unit, is against the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elgrun wrote:
You can't stack fortifications on top of eachother.

Citation needed, because there are rules that say fortifications can be touching in the Stronghold Assault rulebook.

Cite where a fortification can not be on top of a different fortification, since we have permission to have them touching you need a restriction disallowing them to stack.

Since all of this is based on how to deploy a fortification, we should look to those rules. My BRB is at home right now, but doesn't a fortification need to be placed on the table?

If there isn't any restrictions in placing a fortification aside from 3" from another piece of terrain, what is to stop a person from deploying a Fortress of Redemption upside down standing on its tower?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But that's the problem there is no explicit statement that the reserves rule only applies to the deploy forces step. There is an inferred statement there, because that has always been the case.

The easiest choice is to say that Fortification are not units for all intents and purposes.

Cheers

Andrew

I disagree on both accounts, Do you see the section called "deployment"

If you go with deploying fortifications counts as deploying your army, then you can not roll for a warlord trait. That is done before either player deploys. Yet it occurs after set up fortification.

The only logical place for selecting reserves is under deployment, after warlord traits when it says to deploy forces. At which point your buildings are already on the table.

and stronghold assault change the rules for buildings and they now function like any other unit in your army. If you use stronghold assault Its `now RAW.

And all of the above is an inference by you as to the rules interacting with each other and an additional element to the game, ie stronghold. If the fortification is not a unit then there is no breaks, as in the BRB. Once Stronghold is introduced and changed the designation of a Fortification to a unit, you have a break in the rules. Unless Stronghold changes P120, then the Fortification meets all the requirements to allow it to be put into reserve. It is part of your army, it is a unit being deployed and the reserves SR is in effect.

Hey even worse Elderads' The Path Beyond would allow you to redeploy an entire building.

Cheers

Andrew

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

accept there is no flaw, you cannot place terrain within 3" of each other.

Ravenous D,
Aside from that pesky rule that states fortifications purchased as part of a network can be deployed touching each other, and the need for it to be a network of fortifications in order to take more then 1 fortification option for a single slot.

 AndrewC wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But that's the problem there is no explicit statement that the reserves rule only applies to the deploy forces step. There is an inferred statement there, because that has always been the case.

The easiest choice is to say that Fortification are not units for all intents and purposes.

Cheers

Andrew

I disagree on both accounts, Do you see the section called "deployment"

If you go with deploying fortifications counts as deploying your army, then you can not roll for a warlord trait. That is done before either player deploys. Yet it occurs after set up fortification.

The only logical place for selecting reserves is under deployment, after warlord traits when it says to deploy forces. At which point your buildings are already on the table.

and stronghold assault change the rules for buildings and they now function like any other unit in your army. If you use stronghold assault Its `now RAW.

And all of the above is an inference by you as to the rules interacting with each other and an additional element to the game, ie stronghold. If the fortification is not a unit then there is no breaks, as in the BRB. Once Stronghold is introduced and changed the designation of a Fortification to a unit, you have a break in the rules. Unless Stronghold changes P120, then the Fortification meets all the requirements to allow it to be put into reserve. It is part of your army, it is a unit being deployed and the reserves SR is in effect.

Hey even worse Elderads' The Path Beyond would allow you to redeploy an entire building.

Cheers

Andrew

If that's how you want to play it, then just don't roll any warlord traits. Otherwise you're doing the steps out of order and you've already passed up setting up bastions and terrain.

you say inference, I say RAW. It's not a break though, it's recognizing where placing units in reserve has always been done, and continuing to do it at that phase at which time the buildings are already on the table.

But if you do put the building in reserve, it ends up on your table edge which is more than likely not going to help you any during the game. So I'd allow it.

I don't have the rules for Elderad so I can't comment on that ability.

If I want to infer Then I could look at the previous line on pg 15 "fortifications that are buildings typically start the game under the control of one player...." so the rule for treating it as a unit follows and we can infer that it's not treated as a unit until the game starts and it's capable of being attacked. Because it's also during the game they can be captured.

But once it's on the skyshield, it gets the save.

You shoot at enemy units
You shoot at a building as if it was a vehicle and a enemy unit
vehicle units on skyshields get a 4++

therefore buildings on a skyshield get a 4++

I also will point out that I do not believe (HIWPI) you should be able to stack terrain based on the previous usages of the word 'contact' in the BRB (RAI). SO if you allow stacking then they get the invuln. If you don't let them stack the issue never comes up.

1) Nothing in stronghold allows fortifications to be set up above the table or on top of another fortification. The rule being abused here is "When you deploy fortifications on the battlefield, fortifications chosen as part of a Fortification Network can be placed in contact with each other." Note how it says the fortifications are being deployed on the battlefield? You can't deploy part of a fortification network someplace other than on the battlefield.

2) Nothing in stronghold allows fortifications to be set up above the table or on top of another fortification. I know, this was also my number 1 point but I feel as though its so important it must be stressed twice.

3) Fortifications are not necessarily treated as a unit . "In many respects, these buildings function like any other unit in a player’s army ; the major difference is that they can be captured by the enemy..."
a) function is not the same a treated as.
b) It only functions like a unit in many respects, is may also not function like a unit in many respects.
c) you can't know how it does or does not function like a unit with out more explanation, something we do not have in the RAW.
d) stop arguing about this. You can't possibly be right at this point no matter what opinion you have,

Cite where a fortification can not be on top of a different fortification, since we have permission to have them touching you need a restriction disallowing them to stack.

I would feel that I was out of touch with.40k if I needed the rulebook to tell me that stacking 4 fortress's of redemption on top of eachother is inanely idiotic.

 Elgrun wrote:

Cite where a fortification can not be on top of a different fortification, since we have permission to have them touching you need a restriction disallowing them to stack.

I would feel that I was out of touch with.40k if I needed the rulebook to tell me that stacking 4 fortress's of redemption on top of eachother is inanely idiotic.

I am going to do that with two. That way I can tilt the missile silo on the top one forward to give it LOS to models on the board.

More on topic. The rules for terrain state they are placed on the board. On top of the Skyshield is not on the board.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
In most regards, not in all regards.

In most, including getting a invuln save if it's on a skyshield.

Citation needed because I can not find the rule that says this.

so what does "in many respects, these buildings function like any other unit in a players army" mean to you?

In many respects means in the ways listed.

But to claim a Invuln save from a skyshield, when it is not a unit, is against the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elgrun wrote:
You can't stack fortifications on top of eachother.

Citation needed, because there are rules that say fortifications can be touching in the Stronghold Assault rulebook.

Cite where a fortification can not be on top of a different fortification, since we have permission to have them touching you need a restriction disallowing them to stack.

so if TO's start jumping on this stacking bastions thing. What happens if the bottom one detonates?

using stronghold assaults chart on pg 17.

are the ones above it removed as casualties? or would the end up levitating above the crater of the bottom one?

Is it considered a unit to take the 2d6 str 6 hits? or would it not be a unit then either? Lets assume the armor has been reduced to 12 or less.

sirlynchmob wrote:
so if TO's start jumping on this stacking bastions thing. What happens if the bottom one detonates?

The same thng that happens if a regular bastion detonates...

using stronghold assaults chart on pg 17.

are the ones above it removed as casualties?

Why would they?

would the end up levitating above the crater of the bottom one?

What are you talking about?

Is it considered a unit to take the 2d6 str 6 hits? or would it not be a unit then either? Lets assume the armor has been reduced to 12 or less.

Terrain is not a unit as it lacks a unit type...