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.

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE VOTING

There has been some extensive discussion on this, but I've yet to see a clear consensus of opinion. I know the ETC format has ruled on the issue, but as a damn dirty yank, most of my games won't follow an ETC format. Therefore, I'd like to get a 'lay of the land' on this issue.

Webway Portal: If the model with a Webway Portal is in Reserves...then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule.

Reserves: When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it is impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for battle.

Argument the first: Fortifications cannot move after deployment, and are therefore destroyed when placed in Reserves.

Argument the second: The destruction of units which cannot move is triggered only when it is "impossible to deploy them," not when they are voluntarily withheld.

So, the question becomes: can a Dark Eldar HQ with a Webway Portal embark upon a Fortification placed in Reserves and then Deep Strike said Fortification onto the battlefield?

OPTION A: Yes, Dark Eldar can Deep Strike Fortifications.
OPTION B: No, Dark Eldar cannot Deep Strike Fortifications
OPTION C: Other/confused/no opinion

I believe 'Combined Reserve Units' gives permission to declare units are embarked on Transport vehicles, if that makes a difference. Assuming there is a distinction between Transport vehicles and Fortifications.

EDIT: We have permission in the deployment rules for models to be "deployed inside buildings, fortifications or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone" and then a requirement to declare units embarked upon Transport vehicles in reserves.

I don't think you have permission to embark a unit inside a fortification in reserves.

Good point.

However, we are told that models embark into buildings in the same way as vehicles. Does it stand to reason that rules for one would affect the other?

Also, under 'attacking a building' we are told that all special rules affect buildings exactly as if they were vehicles, should that be relevant.

Is there not a rule during pre-game setup that after terrain is setup, you place any fortifications on the board?

Deployment rules make a distinction between buildings, fortifications and transport vehicles. Why shouldn't we here?

Other:
The Building is not a Unit in anyone's Army till after the Start of Game, so it can not be placed into Reserves unless proven that the game begins before Deployment.

While Fortifications have the ability to be 'deployed like other Models in the Army,' and we are told models can be put into Reserves, the Reserve Rules singles out Units and not individual Models. Therefore, the object in question must already meet the definition of 'Unit' before it can be placed into Reserves. While Buildings do have a specific Rule that addresses their "Unit status," Claimed Buildings straight out states they are Units, it has certain conditions that have to also be met before it may take affect. The first has a time restriction of 'Start of Game,' and while no one can really pin-point when that actually occurs it is unlikely to be before both Armies have Deployed. The second possible candidate requires a Unit to be Embarked into the Building, which is not possible unless using a Rule allowing the Unit to Embark during Deployment.

Note: The Combined Reserve Unit Rule specifies that the "Vehicle" has to be in Reserves before something else, also in Reserves, can Embark... it does not over-come this timing issue.

There was a way to do this trick, after much fiddling someone put forth a combination that used an ability found on a single Necron model to solve this 'must be a Unit to Reserve dilemma.' This ability allowed up to 3 Units to be re-deployed, even to be placed in Reserve, after both sides had finished Deploying. By Deploying the Building and then 'Deploying into' the Building, it could be argued that the Building has become Claimed and is now a Unit. The Building could then be placed into Reserves, where it would benefit from the Deep Strike Special Rule as that part had never been in doubt. To my knowledge, this trick is no longer possible as the 'Redeploy/Reserve up to 3 Units' Rule has been stripped from this Model.

 Jimsolo wrote:
However, we are told that models embark into buildings in the same way as vehicles. Does it stand to reason that rules for one would affect the other?

What we're actually told is, "Moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle," which isn't the same as being allowed and required to declare a unit in reserves is embarked on a Transport vehicle in reserves.

Also, under 'attacking a building' we are told that all special rules affect buildings exactly as if they were vehicles, should that be relevant.

Would be relevant if you had permission to embark units in reserves on fortifications in reserves, although Webway Portal already covers this by referring to simply being embarked upon (although there is the argument against a fortification counting as a unit, as has been mentioned).

Haha aaw, see the people clicking no they can't? Can't accept that dark eldar can cause they are that good... Just like with ap 4 or what not a dark angel can't take their rerollable jink junk thing.

Pain4Pleasure,
I am actually saddened by the removal of that 'Redeploy up to 3 Units' ability, and hope I am just over-looking it and it still exists, as I love the idea of a Building screaming down from orbit....

In all seriousness, some people don't like it because it's "silly". If you think about it from a dark eldar perspective though, they use a portal.. that can suck up, and spit back out everything, with complete precision. Why not a building?

Think it has more to do with the fact Buildings are not designed to be sucked through portals in one piece.
However, we are discussing a technology that none of us can fathom the working of, construction material far above our standards, and a race that literally loves doing insane things...
So what do we know?

No chance dude.




-Inflammatory comment edited out by insaniak to avoid further silliness-

This stops buildings from being in reserve: " The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for battle."

Buildings can not move, and if they are somehow in reserves they are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during Deployment.

So the answer is OPTION B: No, Dark Eldar cannot Deep Strike Fortifications

By the RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This stops buildings from being in reserve: " The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for battle."

Buildings can not move, and if they are somehow in reserves they are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during Deployment.

So the answer is OPTION B: No, Dark Eldar cannot Deep Strike Fortifications

By the RAW.

That seems to be the standard reason for choosing B.

However, isn't the 'remove as casualties' consequence a conditional result? One which depends on two conditions being met: being immobile, and it being impossible to deploy during deployment? So, wouldn't it follow that if the unit were possible to deploy, (there was room for it) but you chose to place it in Reserve instead, that the second condition isn't met, and the building isn't removed as a casualty?

Can you quote the full webway rule? Hard to argue for those without the 'dex.

 Quickjager wrote:
Can you quote the full webway rule? Hard to argue for those without the 'dex.

Codex Dark Eldar - Webway Portal wrote:If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserve.

 Quickjager wrote:
Can you quote the full webway rule? Hard to argue for those without the 'dex.

The only portion of the rule not included in the initial post was irrelevant to this discussion. It was omitted to keep the amount of text down.

Jimsolo, If that clause is triggered or not really doesn't matter.

Buildings are not units (Claimed buildings are units at the start of the game, but that is after deployment), so you can not put them into reserve as only units can go into reserve.

The rules for deployment still make Deep Striking a fortification impossible.

Putting something into reserves is not deploying it.

BRB Preparing for battle chapter, Reserves section, Preparing Reserves sub-section wrote:"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later."

They are kept or held back in reserve, not deployed into reserve.

So it does not have access to the reserve rules as they are for units only, and you do not deploy into reserve.

"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. " (Preparing for battle chapter, Reserves section, Preparing Reserves sub-section).

Ergo Buildings can not Deep Strike.

There is enough wiggle room in the rules to allow a Fortification to Deep Strike given a very specific set of circumstances, and the DE are the only codex currently that can meet those very specific circumstances. It's less of a loophole, and more of a case that GW doesn't read their own rules.

SJ

Rule of cool = deepstrike the webway portal!

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183


A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")

Our group allows it, but none of us has the coghones to try and argue that it's the way things are supposed to be. In effect, we say "nope".

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183


A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")

A building is not a model as defined by the 40K ruleset.

What is the buildings unit type? (Because all models have a unit type).

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

No unit type = not a model.

So it can not go into reserve.

Fortifications/buildings are also not Transport vehicles, so again I point out if you are able to place it into reserves there is no permission to declare an Archon with Webway Portal also placed into reserves is embarked upon it.

DeathReaper wrote:This stops buildings from being in reserve: " The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for battle."

Buildings can not move, and if they are somehow in reserves they are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during Deployment.

You missed the condition for that then, if you think it is relevant. "...{I}f it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for battle." This would only actually kick in if you could not fit the Fortification on the board after all the terrain is already on the board. If there is room on the board for the Fortification, than it has no more reason to be removed as a casualty any more than a Drop Pod would be.

DeathReaper wrote:Buildings are not units (Claimed buildings are units at the start of the game, but that is after deployment), so you can not put them into reserve as only units can go into reserve.

Hmm... That is not what the rules say:

BRB wrote:Claiming Buildings
To keep track of which side currently controls a building, we use the concept of ‘claiming’ buildings (or, if you prefer, planting your flag).
• At the start of the game, all buildings that were taken as part of a player’s army are ‘claimed’ by the owning player, whilst all other buildings are ‘unclaimed’.
• A claimed building is a unit in the controlling player’s army and will remain so, even if it later becomes unoccupied, until the building is either destroyed or claimed by an enemy.

According to this, if you purchase a Fortification, it starts as "claimed". And all "claimed" buildings are units in your army. So, it IS a unit of your army before Deployment even begins.

Sorry man. It's a weird conflux of rules, but it is not forbidden by these rules and another example of GW proo-freading.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Fortifications/buildings are also not Transport vehicles, so again I point out if you are able to place it into reserves there is no permission to declare an Archon with Webway Portal also placed into reserves is embarked upon it.

this is the only potentially valid point I can see.

that is possibly countered by "Moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle...all of the normal rules apply" p.110 depending on your interpretation of "move"

but the idea that a building is not a model is willfully obtuse



1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

Sunhero wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Fortifications/buildings are also not Transport vehicles, so again I point out if you are able to place it into reserves there is no permission to declare an Archon with Webway Portal also placed into reserves is embarked upon it.

this is the only potentially valid point I can see.

that is possibly countered by "Moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle...all of the normal rules apply" p.110 depending on your interpretation of "move"

but the idea that a building is not a model is willfully obtuse



1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

Those are not the rules for models though, your premise is false.

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

No unit type = not a model.

This is explicitly written in the rules.

each model has a unit type. End of.

If it does not have a unit type it IS NOT a model as defined by the 40k ruleset.

This is indisputable because of the rule I quoted.

It is not being willfully obtuse, it is the actual rules.

They use model as in the minituare, this is different from what 40K defines as a model.

So while the bastion may be a model (a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original. or replica if you will), it is not a model as defined by the 40k ruleset.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in awhile.

4 to 1 seems pretty definitive. I'm still not swayed by the RAW arguments, but 'no' seems like a reasonable interpretation of the RAI.

Still, of all the races to materialize a building from thin air, Dark Eldar would be included. Necrons put engines on theirs, but could do the same, too.