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.

So, in my recent match over the weekend, it was a mirror match (Custodes v Custodes) and he was all Bikes and Calladius, I was mostly foot and bikes. Neither of us had used this table or it's terrain before, so I couldn't have seen this coming.

But during his turns he proceeds to put his bikes and tanks atop buildings thus making them basically impossible to charge without very good rolls. Is this normal? I was unsure, and asked the nearest players. They all indicated the new flyer rules (Couldn't find) indicate if it can sit, it can stay. I played and lost, but was this real? Can you honestly place things like tanks atop buildings as long as it has "Fly"? I saw a post a while back as a joke where someone put a bunch of repulsors and executioners on top of a tall ruin, but I thought that was a joke?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, in my recent match over the weekend, it was a mirror match (Custodes v Custodes) and he was all Bikes and Calladius, I was mostly foot and bikes. Neither of us had used this table or it's terrain before, so I couldn't have seen this coming.

But during his turns he proceeds to put his bikes and tanks atop buildings thus making them basically impossible to charge without very good rolls. Is this normal? I was unsure, and asked the nearest players. They all indicated the new flyer rules (Couldn't find) indicate if it can sit, it can stay. I played and lost, but was this real? Can you honestly place things like tanks atop buildings as long as it has "Fly"? I saw a post a while back as a joke where someone put a bunch of repulsors and executioners on top of a tall ruin, but I thought that was a joke?

Yes it's normal. It's both RaW and "RaI".

BRB FAQ wrote:Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin, Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail?
A: Yes.

Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry
and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the
ground floor of ruins.’

This is from the first BRB FAQ, which is something like 24 (!) month old, and its still in the current 1.6 version.

So my intent was not to ask if it's normal for vehicles to be unchargable, but if you can rest a vehicle on the top floor of a tower.

I could have sworn that they published something stating you can't put vehicles with fly atop terrain features.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So my intent was not to ask if it's normal for vehicles to be unchargable, but if you can rest a vehicle on the top floor of a tower.

I could have sworn that they published something stating you can't put vehicles with fly atop terrain features.

You're most likely thinking of an ITC house rule that says the entire hull of a vehicle must fit onto a terrain feature, not just the base/flight stand.

Yes it was a custom rule introduced, I believe, at Socal and likely LVO. This will form part of the guidelines in the ITC rulepack but it will be up to TOs what they decide to do