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.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 plus1jeremy wrote:
Doesn't matter. If you can't get all models in a deepstriking unit into base-to-base contact, you suffer a mishap. That rule makes no reference to what kind of terrain the unit is landing on.

Again, by making that assertion you are opening the viability of making units un-assaultable in certain situations using GW's gammy writing.

Units are un-assaultable in certain situations, shocking I know. Why do you think players choose to "bubblewrap" tanks with infantry squads? Oh yeah, it makes them un-assaultable...

Kevin949 wrote:Again, by making that assertion you are opening the viability of making units un-assaultable in certain situations using GW's gammy writing.

As written, yes, that's the case. As a judge, I would rule to use the same rules as assaulting a unit on a different level of a ruin. In a casual game, it would need to be agreed on by both players.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 plus1jeremy wrote:
Doesn't matter. If you can't get all models in a deepstriking unit into base-to-base contact, you suffer a mishap. That rule makes no reference to what kind of terrain the unit is landing on.

Again, by making that assertion you are opening the viability of making units un-assaultable in certain situations using GW's gammy writing.

Units are un-assaultable in certain situations, shocking I know. Why do you think players choose to "bubblewrap" tanks with infantry squads? Oh yeah, it makes them un-assaultable...

That situation is easily overcome and far different than the one at hand. You assume I say that it is ludicrous to claim a situation makes a unit un-assaultable. That is not what I'm saying, I am saying that to propose this one thing (deep striking half on and half off) has ramifications in other areas and is not to be considered in just a vacuum of this one situation. It's somewhat of a trickle effect.

So, stow the assumptions and sarcasm please, it's not wanted here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 plus1jeremy wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Again, by making that assertion you are opening the viability of making units un-assaultable in certain situations using GW's gammy writing.

As written, yes, that's the case. As a judge, I would rule to use the same rules as assaulting a unit on a different level of a ruin. In a casual game, it would need to be agreed on by both players.

So, using different rules for different settings on the exact same situation? That does not seem a bit out of sorts to you?

6th ed introduced fudging the base to base requirement for barricades, much like ruins did in 5th.

Fudging the base to base requirement when fighting across barricades didn't exist in 5th except for in planetstrike and only for aegis defence lines while playing planetstrike.

That didn't prevent anyone from looking the other way in 5th because there's that point where a detailed pre game discussion meets the terrain rules written in the book. More often than not you're having to fudge little things here and there, make different terrain effect different units in different ways, specify the path units must take and add overall specificty when discussing each terrain piece pre game(asking questions, finding answers together), And if you weren't doing that in 5th and you're still not getting in the habbit of discussing and agreeing on terrain with your opponent pre game in 6th the rulebook will not save you.

Kevin949 wrote:So, using different rules for different settings on the exact same situation? That does not seem a bit out of sorts to you?

The situations are nearly identical, in function and flavor, so no, it doesn't seem out of sorts at all. GW doesn't write airtight rules; interpretation is part of playing the game.

Interpretations also differ. If you prefer playing so that a Skyshield can be unassailable by close combat, and your opponent agrees, play that way. To me, that sounds awful.

I hope the original question has at least been answered to satisfaction.