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.

As title suggests, if I occupy a Bastion with a Venomthrope, is the enemy allowed to deepstrike on top of it?

Trying to tinker with a list where I start behind a Venomthrope-filled Bastion and then I have a Flyrant move on top of it at the bottom of Turn1. Therefore, on Turn 2 I can use the Comms Relay on the roof. However, while I was thinking about it, I thought of the possibility of an enemy denying my movement with a Turn1 deepstrike (pods/DA-Terms/etc).

Does the 1" away from enemies apply to occupied buildings? If not I'll deploy Gargs on top as he cannot clear them before his deepstrikes. I'd rather give him less shooting options by hiding some of the gargoyles.

Enemies are allowed to enter parts of a building that are unoccupied. For example, the top part of a bastion if you don't have anyone on it.

So, Yes, they are allowed to DS on top of it if your venomthrope is inside

Hmm, thanks for the quick response!

I guess I'll have to bubble out my gargs! Boo! Hiss! Other signs of disapproval!

Clively,
Battlements have not been part of a Building since mid-way through 6th Edition, when they stripped anything related to Buildings from them via Errata. Stronghold then replaced them with 'top floor of Ruins' and 7th has now simply stated they are independent difficult terrain regardless of the Building under them. They have some additional Rules, but only to tell us that hitting a Unit on the building will also hit the Building underneath or that an Unclaimed Building becomes claimed by moving onto it's battlement and so forth. Outside of those four bullet points, of which one does not relate at all to Buildings, there is no interaction between Battlement and the Building it is on.

Battlements are treated as a separate piece of terrain from the building that they are on top of.
- Battlements
They are difficult terrain.
- Battlements

The real concern is the whole '1 inch radius of an Enemy Model' and how that relates to the 'Enemy Unit' the Battlement is sitting on top of...
But I have always found it a puzzle that Enemy Units can Embark through an Access Point they are forbidden from getting close to....

Welp. Now I'm even more confused! hahahah xD

Join me at my head banging place, the wall is fairly soft from years of Game Workshop driven abuse!

The Battlement is a separate piece of difficult terrain, that is easily proven by Written and Quotable Rules, but what the 'A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model' means to Buildings is very much up for debate. This Requirement makes it very difficult for Enemy Models to do anything when it comes to interacting with the Building, should the Building's "Count's As a Vehicle" Rules grant it Model status through some usual badly written 'Descriptive Rules' and other Rule Interactions. Treating them as Models lead to two very unusual outcomes for the Building Rules themselves:

Embarking can only be done with small Units that can fit every Model between 1 inch and 2 inches from the access point
Battlements become completely off-limits to any Enemy Unit even if the Building and Battlement are left empty throughout the entire game

The more I review Building related Rules, the more I have to conclude the Building is an Unit without any actual Models. However I also know that this leads to other Rule interactions breaking, such as every single one with a subject matter of 'Model' that regularly interact with Buildings. This is why I state to join me at this location and hit your head repetitively against this point, for the celerity it brings is soothing. These problems have always plagued Buildings, from my understanding, and the Hack-and-Paste job that Game Workshop writing each additional Edition ensures that it will be a problem many years into the future.

While these Rules can be navigated by good Lawyers, there will always be some combination of Rules that causes very strange things to occur... the scope of the 'Count as a Vehicle' and how that relates to Models should be discussed with opponents.

The rules for emplacements let you put the item anywhere within 6" of the building so you could hide the coms relay behind the bastion if you want.

Doesn't the Venomthrope in the bastion count as manning the Relay as long as he is within 2" from it?

Just put the comms relay on the battlement and a pod won't be able to fit up there. :-)

More importantly, if you actually landed the drop pod on top of the bastion, the guys inside would not be able to get out since there would be no room for them.

Since models cannot float in mid-air, they would all die when the they disembarked.


Its not a good idea.

Timeshadow wrote:Just put the comms relay on the battlement and a pod won't be able to fit up there. :-)

What stops a unit from landing on the comms? Wouldn't it be treated like an objective? Meaning its treated like the board/terrain. You can stand near it, on it, next to it, etc.

Eihnlazer wrote:More importantly, if you actually landed the drop pod on top of the bastion, the guys inside would not be able to get out since there would be no room for them.

Since models cannot float in mid-air, they would all die when the they disembarked.


Its not a good idea.

Doesn't have to be a drop pod per say, could just be Terminators, etc. Meaning they would have plenty of room to DS on top, but would they still be within 1" of the Venomthrope inside?

Edit: I was under the impression that a Claimed Building is treated like a vehicle. Therefore, any DS on the building is impossible.

p162

Deep striking units count non-ruined buildings (except from their battlements) as impassable terrain

This gives permission to deep strike onto battlements

p110

Models entering a building are removed from the table

Models cannot be within 1" of the occupants because the occupants are not even on the table

Buildings count as vehicles for the following purposes only:


Buildings

Buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them.

Entering & Exiting

Moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle

Attacking Buildings

When determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise

So no there is nothing stopping you from deep striking onto the battlements of an occupied building.

Well written. Thanks for clarifying how the rules interact! I think this is how I'll be playing when a Bastion is in play.

Saythings,
It has an issue though....
Buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules

What does the Transport Vehicle Rules say about measuring to Embarked Units?

Jinx they "use aspects of". They dont "use all aspects of".

The measuring from the unit clause is only in effect when measuring auras or range for shooting attacks.

There is nothing disallowing an enemy model from getting within 1" of a building, embarked or not.

Eihnlazer,
The Measuring clause in question is utilized in all situations involving Measurement to an Embarked Unit with one exception... Shooting Attacks.

As for 'uses aspects of...'
We both are in agreement that this is not a list granting blanket permission to use every Rule, but I would like to point out that the very next section of the Rule informs us what the main differences are. When we are informed that we use certain Rules and then provided a list of exceptions, it is generally accepted that any Rule not on that list is one we are permitted to use. As the list of differences does not inform provide us with alternative measurement instructions, or outright Restrict measure to Units Embarked in a Building, we have to accept that permission to use "Aspects of the Transport Vehicles Rules" includes use of the Rules governing Embarked Units.

I will give you this, the list of exception is not formatted to read like an absolute list either, but does that grant us permission to add or remove things from these lists on a whim?

You can't deepstrike onto a bastion. But you can deepstrike onto a bastion's battlements, aka ruins.

Deviantduck,
What Ruins have battlements?
From my understanding, Battlements are described as a feature certain Buildings may possess.

JinxDragon wrote:

As for 'uses aspects of...'
We both are in agreement that this is not a list granting blanket permission to use every Rule, but I would like to point out that the very next section of the Rule informs us what the main differences are.

Actually that section gives you a heads up of the main differences between the two, it is not an exhaustive list, it is an executive summary. The rest of the page makes it explicitly clear (in bold font no less) the cases where buildings are treated like vehicles (see my previously quoted sections).

Buildings can't score objectives, they can't gain shrouded (e.g. shrouding blessing), they aren't even a friendly unit. Buildings are not vehicles except when it comes to being shot and and embarking/disembarking units.

JinxDragon wrote:
Deviantduck,
What Ruins have battlements?
From my understanding, Battlements are described as a feature certain Buildings may possess.

Buildings have battlements. Battlements are ruins. You can deepstrike into ruins.

 deviantduck wrote:
Buildings have battlements.

Some do, not all.

Battlements are ruins

No, that's 6th ed rules.

BATTLEMENTS
The roof-spaces of many fortifications are identified as battlements. Whilst all
battlements are built on top of another building, battlements are not themselves treated
as buildings.
Battlements are treated as the upper levels of a ruin and follow all the rules for ruins as
detailed in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, with the following exceptions:
Battlements are treated as one large Access Point for their building, meaning that a unit
inside can
disembark onto the battlements, or embark from the battlements.
Jump units, Jet Pack units, Jetbikes and Skimmers do not need to take Dangerous
Terrain tests for starting or ending their move on a battlement.
If a template or blast weapon hits a unit on top of a battlement, that battlement’s building
also suffers a single hit.

^^^ is from stronghold assault. does this no longer apply?

No, it was rep,aced with this:

Battlements
The roof-spaces of many buildings are identified as battlements. Battlements are treated as a separate piece of terrain from the building that they are on top of. They are difficult terrain. Models in battlements terrain receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. In addition, the following rules apply to battlements:

Such a fickle of rules! Is there a general rule acceptance that NOVA/BAO/etc follow for Bastions?

Example:

You can deepstrike on top of a Bastion regardless if it's occupied or not.

Or a ruling that most people play with?

I would say no, you cannot DS onto the battlements of an occupied building. You have to be at least 1" away from an enemy unit. A bastion/fortification with an enemy unit embarked is an enemy unit (more precisely, an enemy unit embarked in a transport). Thus, you cannot move within 1" of it. As the battlements is connected to the fortification itself, then you cannot place an enemy model on the battlements because then you would be less than 1" from the model (unless you are assaulting).

Wtnind,
While the format used suggests it is not an exclusive list, how do you prove that X is something Buildings do not have access to if this list of exceptions does not contain X?

I agree that it is very poorly written and it is not a unique problem, as there are a few Rules that contain the same flaw of 'uses aspects of' or a similar wording. Rules of this nature, telling us to use aspects of another Rule, should always contain an extensive list explaining exactly which Rules are being applied. A better way of writing them would be to simply re-phrase the Rules being referenced and write them straight into the subject matter itself. Because this has not occurred, we are left with the vague 'aspects of Vehicles,' we have no way to disqualify a Vehicle Aspect unless it is on the list of exceptions that was written just as poorly....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jy2,

The Rule is 1 inch from an enemy Model, not Unit.
While Claimed Buildings are Units, there is debate if they are Models because of this and a few other Rules.

JinxDragon wrote:

Jy2,

The Rule is 1 inch from an enemy Model, not Unit.
While Claimed Buildings are Units, there is debate if they are Models because of this and a few other Rules.

We treat buildings as transport vehicles. Can you DS within 1" of a transport vehicle?

Fragile,
They use "aspects" of a Vehicle, which raises the following questions:
Does Aspects grant the Unit Type of Transport Vehicle, or is it limited to granting access to the Rules listed under that Unit Type?
As the 'listed Exceptions' is formatted using examples, are there unlisted Exceptions at play, even if we can't determine what is what?
Could this be why they contain other count as clauses that would already be covered by 'aspects,' in particular all of the other 'count as a Vehicle' Rules?
Notice those other Counts As clauses are limited to specific events or phases, could the Authors also have intended for 'aspects' to also be limited so?

Honestly, I am on the fence concerning if it is a Model or not...
Not only are the Rules unclear because of the formatting used, I hate 'refer to another section' Rules, but no matter the answer some other Rule Interaction will break!

Units are groups of one or more models....

I originally thought that was a suitable answer as well, but I am not sure because of something I read in the wording. As I have a terrible memory I am unsure of the exact wording and why it caused me a moment of concern, allow me to review it later or post the Rule telling us how Models belong to Units here so I can address it sooner. I feel the concern was along the lines of: While Models are grouped into Units, what prevents other things from also belonging to the Unit?

Without a Rule stating a Unit must contain only Models, a Rule granting Unit status can do so without also granting Model Status....