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.

I think I found a really weird rules interaction and I wanted to check if I am missing anything here.

The Fortress of Redemption is listed in the Dark Angels section of the Imperium 1 index. It is a building with strength 0 and 30 wounds.

Imperial Knights with a thunderstrike gauntlet can spend one command point to use the Death Grip stratagem, allowing them to pick up models and crush them until they are able to break free.

From what I can tell, a knight could charge a Fortress of Redemption and then use Death Grip after it has attacked. It will automatically hit the Fortress to 'grab' it, after which the knight and fortress will repeatedly roll off using a D6 plus their strength score, inflicting D3 mortal wounds if the giant building is not able to wriggle out of its grip. Since the Fortress has 0 strength it will always lose and will be mortal wounded to death in a single turn.

Am I missing anything here or would this play out like I suggest? Granted, it isn't likely to happen since the Fortress is a Dark Angels-only model that is listed in the index but not the codex.

I believe there was an FAQ somewhere (which I, of course, can no longer find) saying that Death Grip should use toughness instead of strength if target model doesn't have a strength score, preventing this from working on most other buildings. In this particular case though, I would argue that a strength score of 0 is not the same as no strength score (that would be strength '-').

Thoughts?

Yes this works as you say.

The Fortress does have a S score, albeit zero, so you don't use T instead.

Intended? Probably not. But then this is an index only fortification that next to no one uses, so not surprising it would be missed.

Given that other fortifications generally have a Strength of '-' though, I would hope there wouldn't be much resistance to house ruling this for the fortress too, you'd just need to discuss it with your opponent if it was something that might come up.

Actually anyone can take the model as a fortification if they wanted, but you'll rarely see it on the table because for it's points it's a pile of steaming gak, especially compared to how it used to work.

Aside from that, yes the stratagem does seem to allow for a knight to pull a building apart.

Even if you allow that the building is rolling an unmodified d6 the knight would always win the rolloff.

I get the feeling that the FOR was supposed to have S - , but as it stands RAW it would seem to work. Bit of a dick move possibly, especially since the only time you'll ever see one is in a casual as hell game

I can confirm this is indeed the case. A S of 0 is not a S of -. Pre-FAQ this was the case for any model with a S of - as well.

 Ascalam wrote:
Actually anyone can take the model as a fortification if they wanted, but you'll rarely see it on the table because for it's points it's a pile of steaming gak, especially compared to how it used to work.

Aside from that, yes the stratagem does seem to allow for a knight to pull a building apart.

Even if you allow that the building is rolling an unmodified d6 the knight would always win the rolloff.

I get the feeling that the FOR was supposed to have S - , but as it stands RAW it would seem to work. Bit of a dick move possibly, especially since the only time you'll ever see one is in a casual as hell game

Indeed. You’d have to hate having friends to try this particular “well ackshually”.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I can confirm this is indeed the case. A S of 0 is not a S of -. Pre-FAQ this was the case for any model with a S of - as well.

Indeed. When did you get hired by GW?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ascalam wrote:
Actually anyone can take the model as a fortification if they wanted, but you'll rarely see it on the table because for it's points it's a pile of steaming gak, especially compared to how it used to work.

Aside from that, yes the stratagem does seem to allow for a knight to pull a building apart.

Even if you allow that the building is rolling an unmodified d6 the knight would always win the rolloff.

I get the feeling that the FOR was supposed to have S - , but as it stands RAW it would seem to work. Bit of a dick move possibly, especially since the only time you'll ever see one is in a casual as hell game

Indeed. You’d have to hate having friends to try this particular “well ackshually”.

My group plays pretty strict RAW so we'd probably laugh and destroy the fortress. No actually involved.

Cool, at least everyone in your group would be in on it and expecting the same, so no harm no foul.

Cool, thanks for the input

I always enjoy finding unintended rules interactions that make no sense