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.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Why wouldn't you allow something explicitly allowed by the rules? Especially something that is fairly trivial like this?

The same could be asked to Tournament Organisers.

Tournament organizers ban the skyshield because of the physical size of the model. Since the random terrain placement rules suck many tournaments have preset terrain on each table and you aren't allowed to move it. The skyshield and fortress of redemption are often too big to fit without moving terrain, so the simplest solution is to just ban them. It has absolutely nothing to do with the skyshield being overpowered as a shooting platform.

As for casual setting, it's not so much allowing as simply saying "sorry dude, I just don't want to play against that." Sure, anyone could say that to anything, but casual 40k is a lot like playing apocalypse; both players tend to go in knowing to have fun, while trying not to abuse the rules too much.

Ok, so you're one of those WAAC TFGs who won't play against any list that might beat you. Ok, makes sense.

(And no, putting shooting units on a skyshield pad is not abusing the rules.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Ok, so you're one of those WAAC TFGs who won't play against any list that might beat you. Ok, makes sense.

(And no, putting shooting units on a skyshield pad is not abusing the rules.)

Naturally, I knew someone would think that, despite trying to explain the contrary.

I've never refused a game based on someone's list, but then again, the people in my group tend to be fun loving 40k players, not the kind who look for a facet of the rule to abuse. 6 Chimera sized vehicles on the skyshield? Come on, that isn't rules abuse? The worst I've encountered was a grey knight player with a Draigowing list, and I still faced him off; sure, I lost turn 3, but not because he was using a tactic as boring as the skyshield.

Ironically, you're the one who's calling me out; weren't you the one who started a thread, complaining that gunlines are boring, and you don't understand why people would play them? You'd think the skyshield would be their best friend, and would be even more boring to play against if it was used the way this thread is suggesting. The skyshield is one more reason for players to make a gunline list.

 Shadelkan wrote:
6 Chimera sized vehicles on the skyshield? Come on, that isn't rules abuse?

No, it isn't.

More like extra cheese if you ask me..or jsut a good target for Griffon/mortars.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
6 Chimera sized vehicles on the skyshield? Come on, that isn't rules abuse?

No, it isn't.

Fine, not rules abuse. Was it intended to be used that way? I doubt it very much, and can only hope an FAQ quashes this sort of thing.

 Shadelkan wrote:
Was it intended to be used that way?

I don't know. With the new "Cinematic" approach, I wouldn't doubt we're suppose to believe the the "A"- team is supposed to fly off of it on their homemade
lawnmower-battletank-flamethower-bomber thingy, all the while allied with the muppets....

If you want stupid yet funny:
2x CCS
4x Vets
1 Sky Shield
3 Vendettas
6x Death Strikes, all with camo

3+ cover saves, and just hope you can launch before the enemy gets to you.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

6x Death Strikes, all with camo

3+ cover saves, and just hope you can launch before the enemy gets to you.

Camo netting improves cover saves. Skyshield Landing Pad does not provide one.

 Shadelkan wrote:
I've never refused a game based on someone's list, but then again, the people in my group tend to be fun loving 40k players, not the kind who look for a facet of the rule to abuse. 6 Chimera sized vehicles on the skyshield? Come on, that isn't rules abuse? The worst I've encountered was a grey knight player with a Draigowing list, and I still faced him off; sure, I lost turn 3, but not because he was using a tactic as boring as the skyshield.

No, six Chimeras on a skyshield is not rules abuse. Nothing in the rules says, or even implies "no vehicles allowed", or a limit to the number of units that can stand on it. It's no more "rules abuse" than shooting your Draigowing army with a Medusa and "abusing" the fact that STR 10 AP 2 kills Paladins.

Ironically, you're the one who's calling me out; weren't you the one who started a thread, complaining that gunlines are boring, and you don't understand why people would play them? You'd think the skyshield would be their best friend, and would be even more boring to play against if it was used the way this thread is suggesting. The skyshield is one more reason for players to make a gunline list.

No, I'm the one who started a thread asking why you'd want to USE a gunline army. I have no problem with playing against a gunline army, I just don't understand why it's an appealing strategy.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
6 Chimera sized vehicles on the skyshield? Come on, that isn't rules abuse?

No, it isn't.

Fine, not rules abuse. Was it intended to be used that way? I doubt it very much, and can only hope an FAQ quashes this sort of thing.

Yeah, I'd like to see that FAQ:

Q: Are you allowed to put models on top of a skyshield platform?
A: No. Ignore the rules that grant an invulnerable save to models on top of the platform, and treat the platform as lethal terrain.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I'm the one who started a thread asking why you'd want to USE a gunline army. I have no problem with playing against a gunline army, I just don't understand why it's an appealing strategy.

Why? Because things like skyshields.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to see that FAQ:

Q: Are you allowed to put models on top of a skyshield platform?
A: No. Ignore the rules that grant an invulnerable save to models on top of the platform, and treat the platform as lethal terrain.

You love to ride the sarcastic slippery slope, eh? Is it necessary to be so crass, or is that the only way you know how to reply? Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, yknow.

How about instead of your ridiculously suggestion, why not just give the Skyshield an Armor Value and hull points. Doesn't need to be a building to be destructible.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I'm the one who started a thread asking why you'd want to USE a gunline army. I have no problem with playing against a gunline army, I just don't understand why it's an appealing strategy.

Why? Because things like skyshields.

You're missing the point again. Skyshields make gunlines more effective, I asked why people think they're fun.

How about instead of your ridiculously suggestion, why not just give the Skyshield an Armor Value and hull points. Doesn't need to be a building to be destructible.

Q: Can I shoot at a building that isn't occupied just because I want to?
A: Yes, as long as it's a skyshield platform, just ignore the rule that says you can't.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
6 Chimera sized vehicles on the skyshield? Come on, that isn't rules abuse?

No, it isn't.

Fine, not rules abuse. Was it intended to be used that way? I doubt it very much, and can only hope an FAQ quashes this sort of thing.

I'm fairly certain it was meant to be a place where you could stuff your big guns and have a nice overview of the map while being difficult to dislodge. So no, parking tanks on it would not be violating the spirit of things.

It would cool if you could deploy a bastion on the sky shield. Double layer defense.

 Spartan089 wrote:
It would cool if you could deploy a bastion on the sky shield. Double layer defense.

Now you're just being silly!

 alarmingrick wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:
It would cool if you could deploy a bastion on the sky shield. Double layer defense.

Now you're just being silly!

Indeed. The Fortress of Redemption is obviously the only choice to put on a Landing Pad.


Except for maybe a second Landing Pad.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 alarmingrick wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:
It would cool if you could deploy a bastion on the sky shield. Double layer defense.

Now you're just being silly!

Indeed. The Fortress of Redemption is obviously the only choice to put on a Landing Pad.


Except for maybe a second Landing Pad.

Exactly!
Add queso, warm to a comfortable temperature and serve!

Fortifications are placed before other terrain, thus pick the highest piece of terrain you can and put it right in front of the enemy's landing pad.

If he wants to play like a arsehole, return the favor.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Fortifications are placed before other terrain, thus pick the highest piece of terrain you can and put it right in front of the enemy's landing pad.

If he wants to play like a arsehole, return the favor.

In our gaming group we call that playing Warhammer F***you K. All in all we have moved away from it as a group, but no one has played a skyshield landing pad yet. I have been eyying one, but my better judgement says it would be a waste of money since no one will want to play against it. An IG player in our group is all about the orbital bombardment and negates the ADL on an every game basis. That platform would be the solution. 15 Lootas on top and 15 on bottom. It would not be able to touch the ones on the bottom. This seems like a legitamate reason to take one.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
6 Chimera sized vehicles on the skyshield? Come on, that isn't rules abuse?

No, it isn't.

Fine, not rules abuse. Was it intended to be used that way? I doubt it very much, and can only hope an FAQ quashes this sort of thing.

The Landing Pad was built for flyers to land, so why is it such a stretch for Thunderhawks to drop off some tanks their for an elevated position. Desparation is at the heart of war.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

6x Death Strikes, all with camo

3+ cover saves, and just hope you can launch before the enemy gets to you.

Camo netting improves cover saves. Skyshield Landing Pad does not provide one.

Sure it does, Flip up the walls and ask yourself;
"do the walls obscure 25% of the model behind it?"
pg 18.

After that its just a matter of working out is it a 3+ cover save for a fortification or
a 4+ because of the brb faq saying that's what you get on top of a bastion.
"Q. What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save."

Then like usual when you go to take a save on top of the skyshield, you get your choice of armor, cover, or invuln.

I dont believe you have the choice. I think you have to take what is best in that current situation. Not that it changes anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As queer as it may sound, the RAW is there to get cover from the top of a landing pad (if the 25% obscured is there). So anything that boosts cover saves IE rangers/ pathfinders or camo cloaks, should benefit.

So would regular infantry models start with a 3+ cover save since it is a fortification?

They aren't "in" a fortification. It's the same as if they were standing behind a bastion. And you could only see the left half of the unit.