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.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I'm pretty certain vehicles cannot ride up upon it from ground level.

This is not true, as we are told you can move onto or off of it with a difficult terrain test and nothing restricts this to non-vehicle models.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
In that case, does the space below a Skyshield count as a part of the skyshield?

No idea. It counts as difficult terrain, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
In that case, does the space below a Skyshield count as a part of the skyshield?

No idea. It counts as difficult terrain, though.

No it doesn't. the skyshield is just the skyshield. The rules say nothing about under it, its just an open space under it.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.

Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? That's really down to what you and your opponent decide. It's perfectly acceptable to assume the combatants on both sides have brought plenty of cutting tools, acidic disintegrators or naked ferocity to muscle their way through any wall so foolish as to block their path. Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this.

BRB pg 99

Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but is that even legal to deep-strike underneath terrain?

overlordweasel wrote:

Not related to a Skyshield being full, but I get annoyed when people move or Deep Strike under my pad, so I'm going to fill the space underneath with rocks and other impassable stuff. Is this modelling for advantage?

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but is that even legal to deep-strike underneath terrain?

yep, "place one model anywhere on the table" pg 36

although you have to be able to stand up under it or mishap.

sirlynchmob wrote:
No it doesn't. the skyshield is just the skyshield. The rules say nothing about under it, its just an open space under it.

...which can be moved through as difficult terrain, because the rules say that's how you get up onto the pad.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No it doesn't. the skyshield is just the skyshield. The rules say nothing about under it, its just an open space under it.

...which can be moved through as difficult terrain, because the rules say that's how you get up onto the pad.

You get up onto the shield by making a difficult terrain test, there is no difficult terrain under the shield, its just an open space. You just count as moving through difficult terrain as you move onto or off from the shield.

you make it sound like the area under the shield is always treated like difficult terrain. but that is not the case.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You get up onto the shield by making a difficult terrain test, there is no difficult terrain under the shield, its just an open space. You just count as moving through difficult terrain as you move onto or off from the shield.

Right. So when moving onto or off the shield, the area under it is treated as difficult terrain.

you make it sound like the area under the shield is always treated like difficult terrain. but that is not the case.

No, just when you are moving onto or off the pad.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
You CANNOT move up through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad, nor can you move down through it. Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.

You should really consider reading the rules for ruins again: Page 99,Walls, Doors, Ladders and Natural Thinking
Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? .... Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this.
I underlined the relevant portion of the rules, and yes, according to RAW you may walk through the wall of ruined building. Same rules also allow one to move through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad.

Luide wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
You CANNOT move up through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad, nor can you move down through it. Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.

You should really consider reading the rules for ruins again: Page 99,Walls, Doors, Ladders and Natural Thinking
Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? .... Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this.
I underlined the relevant portion of the rules, and yes, according to RAW you may walk through the wall of ruined building. Same rules also allow one to move through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad.

you cant make the claim that rules for ruins apply to non ruins. That is simply not the case at all.

Pages 98-101 apply to ruins only.

40k-noob wrote:
you cant make the claim that rules for ruins apply to non ruins. That is simply not the case at all.

He's not. He's contesting the claim that you can't walk through the walls in ruins, and pointing out that the ruins rules mention that being able to walk right through the terrain is the default for difficult terrain, not just for ruins. This is just a reminder, though, since the same thing is said in the difficult terrain rules.

the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.

but due to the difficulty already associated with it, I say let them try to get up there any way they can. through the floor, over the side, whatever.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.

Why?

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.

Why?

The same reason I'll be attempting to make my opponent agree that my Lootas are AP2.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.

Why?

mainly to be polite so everyone knows what is what for all the terrain.

what sort of game?
Pg 91, "before you start playing, it's always worth taking the time to talk to your opponent about the terrain you're using."

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.

Why?

mainly to be polite so everyone knows what is what for all the terrain.

what sort of game?
Pg 91, "before you start playing, it's always worth taking the time to talk to your opponent about the terrain you're using."

Impassable though, that's a bit harsh/one sided.
As the opponent I'd disagree and offer the counter that it's difficult terrain

I think the query is over why you would consider it to be impassable as the default position, given it is only difficult terrain and therefore is NOT impassable

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I think the query is over why you would consider it to be impassable as the default position, given it is only difficult terrain and therefore is NOT impassable

Some people seem to have a hard time with the idea that tanks can get onto and off from it, so for some people they might want to just declare it impassible. if a tank moving onto it is so hard difficult to grasp, having it move through the platform must be really confusing

It's an option if anyone wants to play it that way, but like I said I wouldn't do it. That thing is scary enough with just 20 lootas on it

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.

Why?

The same reason I'll be attempting to make my opponent agree that my Lootas are AP2.

And the same reason I won't play someone with a Skyshield.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the best thing to do is when discussing terrain let your opponent know you'd like the floor of the sky shield to be considered impassible.

Why?

The same reason I'll be attempting to make my opponent agree that my Lootas are AP2.

And the same reason I won't play someone with a Skyshield.

Then you are not doing it right. Learn to Improvise, Adapt and Overcome!

I prefer to only play people who aren't using fortifications/allies/random objectives. The sane ones. It results in fewer post game cold showers.

Let's call it 6th ed light. 50% less sodium.

So you are not playing the "real" game (the one that adheres to all of the rules). and you cherry pick your rules out of the book.

That is fine, but know that it's not the way GW intended the game to be played.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is fine, but know that it's not the way GW intended the game to be played.

I'm devastated by that, I assure you.

Point being, if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Point being, if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?

We discuss the terrain rules prior to the game, define and agree to how each piece of terrain will work in our game and follow the rules we've agreed upon, which tends to be a lot better than melting through everything and levitiating with tanks.

40k-noob wrote:

Luide wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
You CANNOT move up through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad, nor can you move down through it. Just like you can't walk through the wall of a ruined building.

You should really consider reading the rules for ruins again: Page 99,Walls, Doors, Ladders and Natural Thinking
Should troops be able to move through walls if there is no door? .... Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this.
I underlined the relevant portion of the rules, and yes, according to RAW you may walk through the wall of ruined building. Same rules also allow one to move through the floor of the Skyshield Landing Pad.

you cant make the claim that rules for ruins apply to non ruins. That is simply not the case at all.

And I didn't. Did you read the underlined portion at all? Here is what it is referring to: page 90, "Moving Within Difficult Terrain"
Note that, as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls,closed doors and windows, and all similarly solid obstacles

See? I didn't make any claim that rules from ruins apply to non-ruins. Instead I made the claim that difficult terrain rules apply to ruins, because ruins are difficult terrain. And it is exactly same rule that allows model to move through walls of ruin as allows model to move through floor of Skyshield Landing Pad.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Point being, if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?

We discuss the terrain rules prior to the game, define and agree to how each piece of terrain will work in our game and follow the rules we've agreed upon, which tends to be a lot better than melting through everything and levitiating with tanks.

Note I was not talking about terrain, I was talking about this:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I prefer to only play people who aren't using fortifications/allies/random objectives.

No fortifications/allies/random objectives?

To that I say "if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?"

We also choose our warlord traits...

 DeathReaper wrote:
To that I say "if you are not going to play by the rules, why even play at all?"

Pulling out the parts of the game that you don't like doesn't mean you're not playing by the rules otherwise. It's perfectly possible for someone to enjoy playing 40K and not enjoy having allies or random objectives in the game... Any of us who were playing before 6th edition have already done so in the past.

While I'm happy to use the full game (although would prefer not to use skyshields or battlements until GW fixes their rules) I can well understand why a lot of players aren't as keen on them.