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.

Can you put a Bastion on top of a skyshield landlng pad?

- steve

No thing in the rules about that, but most players would let you. Unless you were a donkey cave and decided that the bastion gets a 4+ invulnerable save.

how many layers of ridiculous should there be? Skyshield for a 4++ V shooting, Bastion with a void shield for added funsies. the skyshield is immune to damage, the bastion has AV12 with a 4++ before you can scratch its AV14.

are there any models anymore that have a ranged melee attack?

he also had a void shield generator right behind the Bastion, with a void shield, that was on top of the skyshield. I pretty much just ignored the whole thing and just went up the sides. Just wondering if there was any rules whether he could do that or not.

No but you are in fact to refer to him as asshat through out the match.

Technically... there is nothing preventing this, but it is 'That ******* guy' behaviour for sure.

Here is one thing I do need to point out:
If your opponent was running a battle-forged army, they would need at least two Combined Arm Detachments to make use of that combination of fortifications.
Also ensure they have paid for at least one Defence Line, as that is mandatory for that network.

If the bastion is taken as neutral scenery, then no, you cannot put it on a skyshield landing pad. Scenery must be placed on the battlefield. p130 describes the battlefield as the (usually flat) surface that makes up the "open ground" of your board, with scenery being placed on top of it. Fortifications taken as neutral scenery follow the rules for placing scenery, so they have to be on the table itself (no stacking).

Fortifications taken as part of a player's army (meaning they spent the points on them) are deployed just like the rest of the units in their army, so they can place them on top of fortifications, scenery, pretty much anywhere they could deploy a unit (except inside a transport, of course).

Side note: Aren't void shield generators from Stronghold Assault? Your opponent requires your permission to use 40k expansions, so you can at least prevent him from taking void shields. Looks like there's not much you can do about the bastion on top of the skyshield landing pad though :(

Stronghold Assault wasn't an Expansion. It changed the way 6th edition was played. Check out the FAQ to understand how it works with 7th. Short answer, it's not really optional.

Indeed,
Stronghold Assault is referenced many times in 7th Edition as the location to find Fortification Profiles.

How is a Bastion on a Skyshield any more broken than anything else on a Skyshield? What can someone put inside a Bastion that breaks the game?

col_impact wrote:
How is a Bastion on a Skyshield any more broken than anything else on a Skyshield? What can someone put inside a Bastion that breaks the game?

Creed

 BladeTX wrote:

col_impact wrote:
How is a Bastion on a Skyshield any more broken than anything else on a Skyshield? What can someone put inside a Bastion that breaks the game?

Creed

How does that break the game? Do armies need to eliminate Creed in order to prevail?

Col_Impact,
Replace the Bastion with one of the fortifications that have 'wide fire points' or whatever the Rule is called and it becomes a very serious problem. The limitation of the Fire points in a Bastion will ensure only a handful of Models can benefit from being inside of one to begin with, and most of the Models you would want to use either need more shots per turn to be effective or are parts of a Unit which can survive quite well.

However, while the wider Fire Points still have a maximum limit they do reduce that negative to the point it becomes more feasible to use a fortification. Bunkers can already make a Unit immortal in the right situations, as a rout I suffered proved quite well when the only Unit I had left was in a building, and reducing the effectiveness of anti-armor weapons by 50% further enhances that tactic greatly. I can think of a few Units off the top of my head which would go very well into a Bunker of that type, for example: Sniper Drones.

48 inch range means they can threaten quite a large area, one which can easily be set up with objectives and other lures
They would have a 83.5% hit chance and they Wound 50% of the time regardless of toughness, being snipers
The shots have a 16.5% chance of being psudo-rendering or precise, and a chance of both occurring at once, to pick off anti-tank weapons easier
The bunker will ensure their armor, which is better then most, is not circumvented by anti-heavy infantry weapons
Then throw a 50% chance of any anti-tank shot designed to pop such a bunker being ignored....

It becomes a dangerous combination that is best dealt with using Sun-Tzu's advise concerning sieges.

These bunkers also have their own unique arrays of Lascannons that the spotter can fire to make up for having a pistol, believe they have the quad version of las-cannons.
Only downside was the change to Skyfire that greatly reduces the accuracy of those arrays....

I thought that the Shielded rule stated that Units on top of the skyshield got the 4+ invuln save?

Claimed Buildings have a Rule which states they are Units.
Any Building Embarked into becomes Claimed by that side.

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
Replace the Bastion with one of the fortifications that have 'wide fire points' or whatever the Rule is called and it becomes a very serious problem. The limitation of the Fire points in a Bastion will ensure only a handful of Models can benefit from being inside of one to begin with, and most of the Models you would want to use either need more shots per turn to be effective or are parts of a Unit which can survive quite well.

However, while the wider Fire Points still have a maximum limit they do reduce that negative to the point it becomes more feasible to use a fortification. Bunkers can already make a Unit immortal in the right situations, as a rout I suffered proved quite well when the only Unit I had left was in a building, and reducing the effectiveness of anti-armor weapons by 50% further enhances that tactic greatly. I can think of a few Units off the top of my head which would go very well into a Bunker of that type, for example: Sniper Drones.

48 inch range means they can threaten quite a large area, one which can easily be set up with objectives and other lures
They would have a 83.5% hit chance and they Wound 50% of the time regardless of toughness as they are snipers
The shots have a 16.5% chance of being psudo-rendering or precise, and a chance of both occurring at once to pick off anti-tank weapons easier
The bunker will ensure their armor, which is better then most, is not circumvented by anti-heavy infantry weapons
Then throw a 50% chance of any anti-tank shot designed to pop such a bunker being ignored....

These bunkers have their own unique arrays of Lascannons that the spotter can fire to make up for having a pistol
Only downside was the change to Skyfire that greatly reduces the accuracy of those arrays....

It's fully legal to put a Landraider on top of a Skyshield, correct? I view things like bastions as immobilized vehicles.

Moreover, the skyshield effectively just requires twice the firepower to destroy whatever is on it, correct?

If we can spot a truly degenerate combo that would be unleashed then a case for shutting it down can be made, can you dig up more info on a good broken example?

People have been putting things like Stompas on them, so not convinced so far that a fort will push that ceiling into more broken than a Stompa on a Skyshield.

Considering that 'broken combinations' are objective, I could be throwing out Units all day to try and find a single combination that you deem to be 'broken.' Therefore I request that you do your own research into this field if you are really that curious, as there is already numerous Units which are greatly boosted by being put inside a Bunker. Simply ask yourself this question: Will these units become even stronger if that Bunker was then made more resistant to weapons designed to punch holes into it, particularly seeing Wounds are generated whenever the Building suffers Hull loss.

However I will have you consider what happens if the Macro cannon or something building is put onto one, seeing it is the same tactic of a Building on top of a Sky-shield?
The thing already has an AV value above everything else ever fielded to date, one which makes it immune to all bar Strength 9 and 10's.
It has Special Rules which reduce, if not eliminate, the possibility of a Strength 10 weapon exploding it.
Now imagine that Strength 10 weapon has to bypass a 50% save as well....

JinxDragon wrote:
Considering that 'broken combinations' are objective, I could be throwing out Units all day to try and find a single combination that you deem to be 'broken.' Therefore I request that you do your own research into this field if you are really that curious, as there is already numerous Units which are greatly boosted by being put inside a Bunker. Simply ask yourself this question: Will these units become even stronger if that Bunker was then made more resistant to weapons designed to punch holes into it, particularly seeing Wounds are generated whenever the Building suffers Hull loss.

However I will have you consider what happens if the Macro cannon or something building is put onto one, seeing it is the same tactic of a Building on top of a Sky-shield?
The thing already has an AV value above everything else ever fielded to date, one which makes it immune to all bar Strength 9 and 10's.
It has Special Rules which reduce, if not eliminate, the possibility of a Strength 10 weapon exploding it.
Now imagine that Strength 10 weapon has to bypass a 50% save as well....

One easy way to shut these kind of shenanigans down is simply one fort restriction which most tourneys that I know of already implement.

Which is nothing more then a House Rule, binding only to the players of that Tournament, as players are allowed to take as many Fortifications as they have Slots for them in their Army.
I assume this, putting forth reasons to disallow the tactic, means you now see it as broken?

JinxDragon wrote:
Which is nothing more then a House Rule, binding only to the players of that Tournament, as players are allowed to take as many Fortifications as they have Slots for them in their Army.
I assume this, putting forth reasons to disallow the tactic, means you now see it as broken?

No, not at all.

Let's look at it abstractly.

Skyshield basically makes something 2x as tough for 75 points.

It's regularly used to buff LoW, making 800 points of Low 2x tough is quite a buff in terms of sheer point value.

Bastions are cheap. Making it 2x as tough is not a huge deal in point value. Putting a Bastion on a Skyshield is by no means abusive.

The Macro Cannon Aquila Strongpoint is priced (535 points) as per a LoW so the sheer point value gain is comparable to the LoW gain.

Allowing LoW on top of a Skyshield and not allowing the Macro Cannon on top seems inconsistent. Both seem pretty abusive and putting the LoW on the Skyshield is allowed indisputably.

Then why did you point out that tournaments disallow the tactic if you believe it is Rule as Written legal and Author Intended?

I disagree with your reasoning as well:
The Sky-shield was designed and priced during 6th Edition, and likely hack-and-pasted from previous editions. In these Editions it was not legal to take a Super-heavy by default, one needed to discuss the additional Rules and inject them through 'The Most Important Rule' or some Rule provided by an Expansion. This proves that the Rule was written during a period where it was not possible to put a Lord of War on one of these things. Given that Game Workshop do not update a Codex when they release a new edition, we have to wait till they re-release the new Codex for Rules designed for the new Edition, it is not possible to state that the current SkyShield's Rule are designed for 7th Edition.

They are not even reliable on releasing Frequently Asked Question to create bridges between 6th edition and 7th edition Rules, so we will only know what they intend once they release a new Terrain Book...

JinxDragon wrote:
Then why did you point out that tournaments disallow the tactic if you believe it is Rule as Written legal and Author Intended?

I disagree with your reasoning as well:
The Sky-shield was designed and priced during 6th Edition, and likely hack-and-pasted from previous editions. In these Editions it was not legal to take a Super-heavy by default, one needed to discuss the additional Rules and inject them through 'The Most Important Rule' or some Rule provided by an Expansion. This proves that the Rule was written during a period where it was not possible to put a Lord of War on one of these things. Given that Game Workshop do not update a Codex when they release a new edition, we have to wait till they re-release the new Codex for Rules designed for the new Edition, it is not possible to state that the current SkyShield's Rule are designed for 7th Edition.

They are not even reliable on releasing Frequently Asked Question to create bridges between 6th edition and 7th edition Rules, so we will only know what they intend once they release a new Terrain Book...

I haven't stepped in to a RAI argument, yet.

Two things though.

Its supported by RAW.

Its comparable and yet not more powerful than a LoW on a Skyshield.

It is supported by Rule as Written, no one has stated otherwise here.
I do disagree that a Macro Cannon on a Skyshield shouldn't be considered more powerful then any other Lord of War on a Skyshield.

Lords of War come in all shapes and sizes, some of them can be brought down by standard infantry Weapons and are designed to be nothing more then 'elite commanders' functioning within larger Units as a whole. Others are war machines which need light anti-vehicle weapons to damage, relying on the fact they have a lot more Hull points to make them survivable for more then the first two Rounds. Only one or two can come anywhere close to the same result as the Macro Cannon, and those one or two examples are viewed by the majority of posters to be 'unintended consequences' of old Rules interacting with a new Edition.

Consider thus:
The Macro Cannon is one of the only things in the game which requires a Strength 10 Weapon in order to do more then glance.
Strength 10 Weapons are a lot more rare then other Strength values, some armies do not even have access to such a weapon.
Most Lords of War are still vulnerable to weapons from the 6-10 Strength range, even the heavier ones are still vulnerable to standard anti-Tank weapons.
Weapons from those strength values are far more common, rare will be an army which doesn't have any weapon which can harm a Lord of War.
A 50% chance to ignore Strength 9-10, while immune to anything less, is far more valuable then a 50% chance to ignore a strength 6-10 shot, while being immune to 5 and below.

The greater number of shots that will be directed at Models in the 6-10 range in question does factor into the equation.

JinxDragon wrote:
It is supported by Rule as Written, no one has stated otherwise here.
I do disagree that a Macro Cannon on a Skyshield shouldn't be considered more powerful then any other Lord of War on a Skyshield.

Lords of War come in all shapes and sizes, some of them can be brought down by standard infantry Weapons and are designed to be nothing more then 'elite commanders' functioning within larger Units as a whole. Others are war machines which need light anti-vehicle weapons to damage, relying on the fact they have a lot more Hull points to make them survivable for more then the first two Rounds. Only one or two can come anywhere close to the same result as the Macro Cannon, and those one or two examples are viewed by the majority of posters to be 'unintended consequences' of old Rules interacting with a new Edition.

Consider thus:
The Macro Cannon is one of the only things in the game which requires a Strength 10 Weapon in order to do more then glance.
Strength 10 Weapons are a lot more rare then other Strength values, some armies do not even have access to such a weapon.
Most Lords of War are still vulnerable to weapons from the 6-10 Strength range, even the heavier ones are still vulnerable to standard anti-Tank weapons.
Weapons from those strength values are far more common, rare will be an army which doesn't have any weapon which can harm a Lord of War.
A 50% chance to ignore Strength 9-10, while immune to anything less, is far more valuable then a 50% chance to ignore a strength 6-10 shot, while being immune to 5 and below.

The greater number of shots that will be directed at Models in the 6-10 range in question does factor into the equation.

AV15 is intended to be a level that some armies can't bring down and are forced to fight around. AV14 is already that level for some armies.

All the Skyshield winds up being is that you have to throw 2x as many shots at it.

That isn't even your biggest concern. Can't you also make the Macro-Cannon invisible per the rules?

JinxDragon wrote:
Claimed Buildings have a Rule which states they are Units.
Any Building Embarked into becomes Claimed by that side.

So what unit type are they when they are claimed?

Even if you where accurate with the 'throw 2x as many shots at it,' probability tends to be more of a curve then straight up multiplication, how are you not realizing that is the problem?
Twice as many Strength 10 Shots is disproportionately more difficult to achieve then twice as many strength 7 shots....

All over something which many doubt where ever intended, as it is easy to overlook Rules allowing Fortifications on top of Fortifications if none of the play testers conceived the tactic before release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper,
Where in the book does it state a Unit needs a Unit Type?

Claimed Buildings have a Rule which literally grants them Unit status, because it straight us states they are Units.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (Models and units chapter, Other Important Information section).

Each model will have a unit type, if it is not a model it can not be a unit.

"A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (Models and units chapter, Units section).

JinxDragon wrote:
Even if you where accurate with the 'throw 2x as many shots at it,' probability tends to be more of a curve then straight up multiplication, how are you not realizing that is the problem?
Twice as many Strength 10 Shots is disproportionately more difficult to achieve then twice as many strength 7 shots....

All over something which many doubt where ever intended, as it is easy to overlook Rules allowing Fortifications on top of Fortifications if none of the play testers conceived the tactic before release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper,
Where in the book does it state a Unit needs a Unit Type?

Claimed Buildings have a Rule which literally grants them Unit status, because it straight us states they are Units.

There is no curve with a single die roll. 4+ save means you lose half of your successes. So you need to have 2x as many successes upfront of the invul save to compensate.

It means you have a 50% chance of each shot being discounted, far from a guaranteed reduction of half the shots... I am a Jinx, so being on the short end of probability is sort of a trait of mine. It will always possible to lose all of the shots or none of the shots simply by chance, so we can not state it will simply require twice the number of shots to have the same affect. I have also not limited this to just a single dice roll, as the Models being discussed have multiple Wound or Hull Points and will require multiple dice to remove them as a casualty to begin with.

Which brings me back to this:
Requiring additional Strength 9-10 Shots increases the difficulty disproportionately to a requirement for multiple Strength 7+ Shots, the number of dice that can be rolled greatly increases.

JinxDragon wrote:
It means you have a 50% chance of each shot being discounted, far from a guaranteed reduction of half the shots... I am a Jinx, so being on the short end of probability is sort of a trait of mine. It will always possible to lose all of the shots or none of the shots simply by chance, so we can not state it will simply require twice the number of shots to have the same affect. I have also not limited this to just a single dice roll, as the Models being discussed have multiple Wound or Hull Points and will require multiple dice to remove them as a casualty to begin with.

Which brings me back to this:
Requiring additional Strength 9-10 Shots increases the difficulty disproportionately to a requirement for multiple Strength 7+ Shots, the number of dice that can be rolled greatly increases.

It's exactly the math of flipping a coin.

Look, allowing a Macro Cannon on top of a Skyshield goes hand in hand with allowing a LoW on top of a Skyshield. If the latter is allowed then so should the former.

What do you think about the separate issue of casting invisibility on the Macro Cannon?