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.

If a furled Skyshield is filled completely with short models such as Rippers, Scarabs or Grots, which cannot be seen from ground level due to their height and the blast shields, are those units immune to being assaulted?

IIRC according to the assault rules a unit must be able to see the unit they intend to assault, which would seem to bear this out.
Presumably this would also prevent any assault from under the Skyshield, as there is no LOS to the units above (unless there is room to move up onto the Skyshield first)

Also, say we put a taller unit or two filling the Skyshield, with a ring of the smaller models completely hidden around the edge of the furled Skyshield, would the shorter, hidden unit prevent an assault on the units in the centre?

While i agree that the Skyshield's rules are terribly written, this came up in a game a few days ago, with a ring of invisible grots being used to block access to the units in the centre.

Please feel free to weigh in on this, but let's keep the vitriol level low. I just need to know the RAW on this so that i can take it to the TO for our local games to review, and don't currently have access to the rulebook as i'm away from home at present.

Yes; if you cannot see them you cannot assault them. You must be able to reach the unit, so if you must move along the ground when assaulting you could not reach the inner unit you CAN see. JI could avoid that.

The Ring of grots doesn't block access, since the pad is difficult terrain. Unless you have agreed otherwise at the start of the game, you can just move up through the floor, provided you roll sufficient movement.

If you actually look at the skyshield model there is a ladder going up each "leg" and a correponding hatch in the floor or the pad.

Only way you could use the grots to prevent assault would be to cover the entire of the skypad in grots so there was not space to place a model ontop.

< Taken by the void dragon >

I thought you had to use the access points on the skyshield?

MarkyMark wrote:
I thought you had to use the access points on the skyshield?

the brb faq did away with the skyshield access points

Mythantor wrote:
If you actually look at the skyshield model there is a ladder going up each "leg" and a correponding hatch in the floor or the pad.

Only way you could use the grots to prevent assault would be to cover the entire of the skypad in grots so there was not space to place a model ontop.

The ladders are purely decorative. Skyshields have no access points, you just move up to them through difficult terrain.

Mythantor wrote:
If you actually look at the skyshield model there is a ladder going up each "leg" and a correponding hatch in the floor or the pad.

As Insaniak said, the ladders and hatch are now currently decorative; per faq the "as modeled" piece is no ignored. Planet Strike used to be the only way to get rules for the landing pad. Under PS, you had to use the ladders to get on it, etc.

However, 6th cut all of that out and the whole thing is simply treated like some form of "unique" terrain that gives those on top an invulnerable save if the barriers are up or helps deep striking. Quite frankly, the model itself no longer fits the rules at all. If you wanted it to be "cinematic" and therefore look like what the rules are then you could either simply cut off the legs and drop the top portion flat onto the battlefield or fill everything underneath it with a 3" hill with gentle slopes running up for the vehicles to use. Either of those representations would give a clearer picture of it's usage.

Getting back to the question: As there are no access points the hatch in the middle is now simply decorative. Given it's "unique" status combined with removal of the access point text, we really don't have much of a foundation to work with as to where we can move on or off of the thing. All we know is that it requires a DT test.

For a tournament, you'll have to specify where/how you will allow models to get on or off. Options seem to be: 1. anywhere along the outer part; 2. pylons only; 3. anywhere including through the floor; 4. pylons and trap door only.

Personally, I think it would be better to stick to using the ladders on the pylons; however, others might think coming up through the floor is acceptable. If you do the latter you might want to consider it like a battlement and follow those rules.

clively wrote:
Getting back to the question: As there are no access points the hatch in the middle is now simply decorative.

There is no hatch in the middle. Just the hatches over the ladders.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no hatch in the middle. Just the hatches over the ladders.

Just looked again, you're right. I think the rest stands though.

 Che-Vito wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The Ring of grots doesn't block access, since the pad is difficult terrain. Unless you have agreed otherwise at the start of the game, you can just move up through the floor, provided you roll sufficient movement.

This. Because it's Difficult Terrain, you can move the models up and claim 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' to counter your opponents TFG approach.

Further question the TO had (i'm helping him out as he's crazy busy and doesn't have net access at home)

Can you claim wobbly model syndrome to stand on top of the walls, even though it's within 1'' of the enemy, to be able to see them and then affect them? WMS (pg 11) allows you to leave the model itself elsewhere and declare where it actually is, as long as you are willing to hold it in place for the opponent to figure LOS

Hypothetical situation, paraphrased from him, so apologies if this is inaccurate. This is his thinking..

The whole pad is full edge to edge with low models. No space to move up onto the pad itself exists (as you'd need a pretty wide strip to be able to stay 1'' away from the models up there anyway).

You can't move within 1'' of the unit up there unless assaulting (pg 10)

The models can't be seen from the ground. You can't move up onto the pad itself, as to be outside the 1'' from the edge you would be hovering almost 1'' away from the pad on a level with the top, not touching it. I think this might be stretching WMS to breaking point, as you'd be in mid air, 6'' off the ground, not actually on any scenery, but i'm open to suggestions on handling it.

You can't assault up through the floor, as you can't see the unit you intend to assault, and the same goes for JI (as they figure the LOS for the charge from the place the model is standing (unless of course there is scenery high enough to see across into the pad..). Let's assume for simplicity's sake that the Skyshield is the only scenery present, unrealistic as that is.

Fliers can see and shoot them just fine, being taller. Indirect fire artillery can target them out of sight.


Summary, as i'm rambling a bit trying to convey his thinking, and i'm exhausted.

The issue he has is that no-one can see the low models from the ground, and thus can't target them directly with shooting. No-one can see them through the pad, or from the ground, and so can't assault them as though assaulting through difficult terrain, because to assault you need LOS, however you measure the entry to the skyshield.

WMS allows you to be 'on' a piece of scenery, as long as you are willing to hold the model in place when the enemy wants to shoot you, but it doesn't seem to allow for hovering next to the scenery 1'' away from the grot on the other side of the blast shield, as you can't get closer than that outside of the assault phase.

A filled pad would also preclude you moving to within 1'' of the bottom of the pad (apprx) as the models are on the other side, and you can't move within 1'' outside of assault.


I'm not trying to justify the TFG-ass tactic. What he and I are trying to do is determine the rule-legality if the tactic.

In the case of the Ring-o-Grots tactic the grots are within 1'' of the other units on the pad, leaving no room to move up between the units in the center and the grots through the floor, and their presence at the edge of the pad precludes any unit moving through or over them to get to the units in the middle, as they must stay 1'' away from the grots at all times except for when assaulting, which they can't do through the grots and can't do tio the grots due to the fact that they can't be seen without standing on top of the blast shield.

I've been recommending that we just ban the Skyshield, for reasons we've already covered in this or other threads, but he's determined to check the legitimacy of the 'tactic' ruleswise before he decides.

 Ascalam wrote:
I've been recommending that we just ban the Skyshield, for reasons we've already covered in this or other threads, but he's determined to check the legitimacy of the 'tactic' ruleswise before he decides.

That would be my vote. I would also recommend banning anything with battlements, because as of right now their rules are just broken.


However, if he does want to use them, my take is that WMS would perfectly allow you to assault a unit ringing the edge of the pad, because moving up onto the pad just counts as moving through difficult terrain. So even though the space around the pad is just empty air, there is nothing stopping you from just moving as close as you can and calling it good enough, so long as the unit has sufficient movement to actually make it into base contact.

But you'd be forced to stop approx 1'' diagonally down from level due to the diagonal measurement from the grot, which means you'd not be able to see over the wall, and thus couldn't assault due to lack of LOS..

HWYPI i would agree with you if forced to allow the fether, but RAW-wise it still seems to hit a snag.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm the one voting for it to just be banned, but he insists we wrangle the rules ramifications to his satisfaction first (he's on the other side of my game room, staring at a skyshield full of ripper bases, and swearing..).

 Ascalam wrote:
But you'd be forced to stop approx 1'' diagonally down from level due to the diagonal measurement from the grot, which means you'd not be able to see over the wall, and thus couldn't assault due to lack of LOS..

Yeah, I misread it... thought you were talking about assaulting.

I wouldn't allow models to just hover around the pad unless they were assaulting, purely for simplicity's sake.

Nods.

Raw-wise it seems the TFG tactic is sound, barring a good orbital bombardment or a good dakka-infusion from fliers.

We'll see what he decides, as he's not fond of banning units/tactics if they are RAW-legal.

@Ascalam

Assaulting really isn't has hard as you'd think. Keep in mind only 1 model from the unit needs to be able to see the units on the shield. So all you need to do is get your unit under the shield, daisy chain out a line til you can see a model, then assault only needing the units still under the edge of the shield to make their distance. Really not that hard even with 3d6 dropping the highest.

The next question to be considered though is what do you need to roll to move up? The shield is 3.5" high so I'd say you need to roll 4+" to get up there as the 3" was a rule for ruins.

Those models that assault up, move into b2b standing on the wall and leaning into the two models along the edge.

Then during pile in and how high you ruled the shield, most of the grots will end up moving down from the shield to make b2b with the rest of the unit under the shield that couldn't get up making more room for other units to move up there.

I wouldn't really see the skyshield as something that needs to be banned. As I think its 4 out of 6 missions are objective based if he wants to camp the majority of his army on the shield he'll lose more games than he wins.

Of course a few custom made terrain pieces that look like wallish and 7" tall placed 3" from the shield will mess up most of his plans as well

Which is the problem.

As i stated in the situation above. You can't SEE the grots from the ground. If you can't see them, you can't assault them.

Most units it's not an issue, as they are tall enough for you to draw LOS on them from the ground, The grots, rippers etc are short enough to be completely hidden by the blast shield. You can't see them to get LOS for a charge, or to shoot them with normal guns.

You can't get closer than 1'' of them in any direction while climbing up, And you can't assault what you can't see. You can't up high enough to see them over the wall because you have to stop 1'' below the platform, so you can't stand B2B with the wall, because that would be within 1'' of the grot, which you can't do unless assaulting.

The Skyshield is full edge to edge, so there is nowhere you can move up to, without being within 1'' of a grot/ripper base/whatever including standing on top of the blast shields. You have to stop 1'' away, and WMS doesn't allow you to stand on thin air.

I'll try to take some pics, to illustrate, later.


We're discussing the RAW of the scenario, not the HWYPI, because that is what the TO i mentioned asked me to ask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
'I wouldn't really see the skyshield as something that needs to be banned. As I think its 4 out of 6 missions are objective based if he wants to camp the majority of his army on the shield he'll lose more games than he wins.

Of course a few custom made terrain pieces that look like wallish and 7" tall placed 3" from the shield will mess up most of his plans as well '

True enough. This is less an actual in-game situation than a discussion of whether the tactic is legal. A decent spread of occupied ruins, or a vigorous dakkajetting, would ruin the day of anyone trying it, but we are trying to check to see if there is any way by strict RAW that you can affect the grots in question, in a situation where the Skyshield is in the situation i outlined earlier.

Yes the tactic is legal. And in the situation you mentioned just thinking of just the sky shield alone, then yes it would pretty much be unassailable.

But I still think you should be able to see them from the dip in the corners.

But lets also think of things that you can do to it.

Barrage weapons will clear some room. Because lets be real its a 4+ save. he's going to fail 1/2 the time meaning a lot of dead grots.

any flier can shoot them.

And for added fun, Tanks can move up there and tank shock the units up there.

But if you leave a skyshield all by itself without surrounding it with other terrain, you deserve to be denied assaults with it. A simple 2 story ruin will solve a bunch of problems placed 3" away from the shield.

You put a model on the second floor, a model under that one, the next one 1" away from the shield, then the rest of your models around the rim. As your top guy can see the grots (he just needs to see one in the unit, not the closest one) he can declare the charge, even if he gets overwatched and dies, he saw the grots so the charge still happens. Now all the models around the rim move up onto the shield making b2b with the grots by being placed on the wall and leaning into the grots. .

That's what i thought

There are ways around it, but we wanted to check the tactic out in a vacuum.

It's a lot less useful in a real game This was a thought-experiment to check the RAW for the TO.

Any proppa battlefield will gave hard counters to the tactic around , like fliers, barrages or nice tall buildings,

Tankshocking a battlewagon or two up there could be hilarious too.. visualizing Grots bailing off the thing like lemmings..

Now for a fun thought exercise. And something for your TO to think about.

Are units on top of the shield and on the bottom of the shield in coherency? It's not a ruin so those rules don't apply to the shield. For your standard space marine and ork boy models, then no they are not. They have 2.5" from the head of the one on the bottom to the base of the one on top.

It stands about 3.5" tall so do you rule it 3" to keep with all the other elevated terrain features, or 4" to move onto and off from the shield.

Now you can just rule on the top/bottom coherency and call it good, which makes assaulting the shield easier. If you don't rule it good, then all assaulting models need to make the top of the shield or the assault fails.

Now the fun side to that, Units on top of the shield have a 4++. The shield grants the whole unit the save. Now doesn't that look exactly like the KFF wording? All units within 6" get a 5+ cover save. So if I have 1 model within 6" of the KFF the unit gets the save. SO if I have 1 model on top of the shield, the unit gets the save. So if you rule that models on top and bottom are still in coherency, you could leave 1 ork boy on the shield, snake the other 29 off towards whatever and the unit gets a 4++

This is why I say they are out of coherency, yes it makes it harder to assault, but it prevents the cheesier option.

Another thing that could come up is, when a vehicle explodes on the shield (friendly or enemy) is an exploding vehicle a "enemy shooting attack"? I wouldn't think so.

Lastly is cover saves, the walls grant a cover save because they do cover over 25% of the models. which help with stealth/shroud and going to ground. Around here we've ruled it a 4+ cover, but it's been debated from 5+ to 3+. Then for going to ground is it area terrain on top? It is a terrain feature that has a clearly defined boundary, but it is open terrain and not difficult terrain.

I'm sure he'll appreciate your sadism

I'll pass those along