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.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's completely possible to make a Skyshield literally impervious to assault without WMS.

You need LoS to assault. It's pretty easy to stand 1.5" or so back from the edge with short models (Rippers, Scarabs, Grots, etc.) and ensure you cannot place a model on top to get LoS. "Just shoot them". Sure. No problem. Every time you shoot something it does, right? You've never failed to kill something?

Ya because no one uses barrage weapons, fliers, MC's or places their units up in ruins that can have a view of the thing. If they're relying on the 4++ that still means every 2 wounds caused, 1 model takes a wound.

 insaniak wrote:
So models move up to the platform... how, exactly?

Doesn't matter, you use the standard rules for moving through difficult terrain and go from point A to point B, ignoring "impossible" obstacles in the way. How you justify it fluff-wise is up to you.

So... Did you read the entire post? Where I acknowledge something far away could shoot them...

Which also means your assault unit gets to stay useless for a bit if the shooting fails. And a 4+ does not guarantee 1 wound for every 2 - that's the statistical average, but relying on averages is rarely the best plan.

The Skyshield is classified as Unique Terrain, as per it's Terrain Type. The top surface is classified as open terrain, while moving off or onto the Skyshield counts as moving through difficult terrain. Through technicalities on the definition of Unique Terrain, that can also mean that this is more than one type of Terrain at the same time. For instance, it could easily count as a "Ruin without Base". Other fortifications were luckily classified with actual building definitions, while the Skyshield remains "Unique Terrain". Until an update is released on the subject however, it's all up in the air.

 insaniak wrote:
Ah. So your 'general rule' doesn't actually exist, then?

Of course it exists. Models are where they are on the table unless explicitly given permission to count as being somewhere else. Asking for a rule for this is like demanding a rule that you don't fire 10 shots at half range with a rapid fire weapon.

Well, yes, if you discount the rule that applies to the situation, there is no rule that applies to the situation. Well done.

No rule besides the general one, which is sufficient to cover the situation.

... which is a situation that GW created by allowing models to walk through empty air to get up there...

And then covered by the difficult terrain rules where you are given permission to move through obstacles (such as walls with no doors) and go from point A to point B. That does not imply any permission to have models stop and hover in midair.

GW have shown in the past that they are quite happy to change rules to satisfy perceived game balance. Reference the Dark Angels power field vs transport vehicle ruling in the DA FAQ.

Sure. We can speculate all we want about how GW might change the rules in the future, but the question here is what they say now.

rigeld2 wrote:
So... Did you read the entire post? Where I acknowledge something far away could shoot them...

Which also means your assault unit gets to stay useless for a bit if the shooting fails. And a 4+ does not guarantee 1 wound for every 2 - that's the statistical average, but relying on averages is rarely the best plan.

And how would your assault unit be in assault range on the first turn? odds are you'll have 2 full turns of shooting before your assault units get into position, sometimes 3 if they're deep striking in.

And depending on the mission, as he can't place any objectives on the shied, you can also just hide under the shield yourself, place some blocking terrain next to other objectives and wait him out.

The law of large numbers means you can pretty much rely on statistical averages. so after 3 rounds of shooting there should be plenty of room for your assault unit, if there's any models left on the shield

sirlynchmob wrote:
With a difficult terrain test, that is how you move onto, or off from the shield. .

Ah. So this difficult terrain test allows them to move directly up to a platform 3 times their height above the ground... but doesn't allow them to levitate, or defy gravity....

Like any other difficult terrain test, if you don't roll high enough to get into the terrain, you still need to make the test and use the results.

Except the terrain you are trying to enter is not difficult terrain in this case. The top of the skysheidl is open.

In any other situation where you have open terrain surrounded by difficult terrain, a difficult terrain roll that is insufficient to reach that open ground would not stop you from using the distance that you have rolled.

Otherwise you are advocating you can levitate around the battle field and I can then levitate over other dangerous or impossible terrain.

No, I'm just advocating that a specific piece of terrain that allows models to levitate to reach it allows models to levtitate to reach it.

 insaniak wrote:
Ah. So this difficult terrain test allows them to move directly up to a platform 3 times their height above the ground... but doesn't allow them to levitate, or defy gravity....

Again, you're confusing fluff with rules. The rules for difficult terrain permit you to move from point A to point B, even if "impossible" barriers like a wall without a door are in your path. How you justify this fluff-wise is up to you. The Skyshield is no different, you can move across the obstacle as long as your ending point is legal, but that doesn't give you permission to pretend that your model is hovering in midair as its final position.

Except the terrain you are trying to enter is not difficult terrain in this case. The top of the skysheidl is open.

Doesn't matter. You have to roll for difficult terrain (and are limited to the result of that roll) if you move through ANY difficult terrain, even if you start and end your move in clear terrain.

In any other situation where you have open terrain surrounded by difficult terrain, a difficult terrain roll that is insufficient to reach that open ground would not stop you from using the distance that you have rolled.

But a failed roll to get onto the Skyshield doesn't stop you either. If you roll a 1 for your movement distance you are still permitted to move 1" in some other direction along the ground.

No, I'm just advocating that a specific piece of terrain that allows models to levitate to reach it allows models to levtitate to reach it.

No, you're advocating allowing a model to end its move on the ground but pretend that it's floating in midair.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course it exists. Models are where they are on the table unless explicitly given permission to count as being somewhere else.

Oh, of course. How silly of me.

You know what this game needs? A rule allowing models to count as being somewhere they're not able to be placed. They could call it, I don't know, 'Models that wobble' or something.

And then covered by the difficult terrain rules where you are given permission to move through obstacles (such as walls with no doors) and go from point A to point B. That does not imply any permission to have models stop and hover in midair.

The difficult terrain rules allow you to move through obstacles. They don't really deal with empty air. The general assumption made by players (in the absence of your 'general rule') is that in order for a model to move somewhere, it has to do so along the terrain. Models are only able to fly if they have some rules-based means of doing so.

The skyshield ignores that, and allows models to fly to the top surface with a difficult terrain test. However you want to slice it, this sort of movement is outside the normal scope of the game. The only reason this movement is possible at all is that the skysheild rules say that it is... It takes empty air and makes it something that normal models can walk on. And within that context, there is absolutely no reason for WMS to not apply if the model doesn't make it all of the way to the top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, you're advocating allowing a model to end its move on the ground but pretend that it's floating in midair.

... in this specific situation, where the rules allow models to move through empty air as if it is terrain, yes.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course it exists. Models are where they are on the table unless explicitly given permission to count as being somewhere else.

Oh, of course. How silly of me.

You know what this game needs? A rule allowing models to count as being somewhere they're not able to be placed. They could call it, I don't know, 'Models that wobble' or something.

And then covered by the difficult terrain rules where you are given permission to move through obstacles (such as walls with no doors) and go from point A to point B. That does not imply any permission to have models stop and hover in midair.

The difficult terrain rules allow you to move through obstacles. They don't really deal with empty air. The general assumption made by players (in the absence of your 'general rule') is that in order for a model to move somewhere, it has to do so along the terrain. Models are only able to fly if they have some rules-based means of doing so.

The skyshield ignores that, and allows models to fly to the top surface with a difficult terrain test. However you want to slice it, this sort of movement is outside the normal scope of the game. The only reason this movement is possible at all is that the skysheild rules say that it is... It takes empty air and makes it something that normal models can walk on. And within that context, there is absolutely no reason for WMS to not apply if the model doesn't make it all of the way to the top.

You just need the owner of the sky shield to agree with your WMS interpretation, so there's a pretty good reason it won't get applied.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You just need the owner of the sky shield to agree with your WMS interpretation, so there's a pretty good reason it won't get applied.

It wouldn't be applied because I wouldn't be asking for it. In the peculiar event that I decided to play a game against someone using a skyshield, I would by arguing for the far more commonly accepted 'treat it as a ruins' approach. It achieves effectively the exact same result, but is less headache-causing.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You just need the owner of the sky shield to agree with your WMS interpretation, so there's a pretty good reason it won't get applied.

It wouldn't be applied because I wouldn't be asking for it. In the peculiar event that I decided to play a game against someone using a skyshield, I would by arguing for the far more commonly accepted 'treat it as a ruins' approach. It achieves effectively the exact same result, but is less headache-causing.

For the record, I'd say no to both. The skyshield is no where near as OP as people try to make it out to be. It doesn't need any funny playing with rules, it really is fine the way it is.

 insaniak wrote:
You know what this game needs? A rule allowing models to count as being somewhere they're not able to be placed. They could call it, I don't know, 'Models that wobble' or something.

And, again, WMS does not cover this. WMS covers a situation where the model CAN be placed but the owner would prefer to have it in a safer location. It does NOT give you additional movement options.

The difficult terrain rules allow you to move through obstacles. They don't really deal with empty air.

They don't need to. Empty air is just another obstacle, the difficult terrain roll allows you to pass through it and go from point A to point B (if your movement distance is sufficient).

The general assumption made by players (in the absence of your 'general rule') is that in order for a model to move somewhere, it has to do so along the terrain.

Which is wrong according to the rules. For example, you can move through a wall without a door instead of having to move along the terrain up the wall, across the top, and down the other side (a considerably longer distance).

The only reason this movement is possible at all is that the skysheild rules say that it is...

And that's all you need. Roll difficult terrain, move directly from point A to point B if your movement distance is sufficient. How you justify fluff-wise what your models are doing is up to you, the rules don't care.

And within that context, there is absolutely no reason for WMS to not apply if the model doesn't make it all of the way to the top.

Except for the requirement that the model be successfully placed before asking to use WMS, which you can't do.

Except for the requirement that your opponent give you permission to use WMS (which they will never do in this situation).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
It achieves effectively the exact same result, but is less headache-causing.

And why do we need to obtain that result? Why don't we just play it as the rules say to play it, since the rules work just fine?

It's not really an issue of it being particularly overpowered, just of one specific interpretation of the rules not making any sense within the (admittedly rather limited) scope of the rules they wrote for the thing.

If you're going to allow models to levitate to the platform in the first place, there is absolutely no reason to not assume that they can levtitate to assault it.

 insaniak wrote:
It's not really an issue of it being particularly overpowered, just of one specific interpretation of the rules not making any sense within the (admittedly rather limited) scope of the rules they wrote for the thing.

If you're going to allow models to levitate to the platform in the first place, there is absolutely no reason to not assume that they can levtitate to assault it.

Because levitating around the battle field makes more sense than your assault just failing that turn? Now if only there was any permission anywhere for models to levitate. It's a near impossible scenario and I guess we can go over it again next week

 Peregrine wrote:
They don't need to. Empty air is just another obstacle, the difficult terrain roll allows you to pass through it and go from point A to point B (if your movement distance is sufficient).

You realise that this interpretation leads you to crazy places, like models balancing on the top of trees as in Crablezworth's picture?

Why don't we just play it as the rules say to play it, since the rules work just fine?

Because, apparently, some people have issues with WMS applying to this situation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Because levitating around the battle field makes more sense than your assault just failing that turn?

No, models levitating around the battlefield doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately... Skyshield. Levitating. Ho!

The thing is, you could make the same argument about ruins. Why bother allowing models to assault a level up in ruins when there is no room for them to get there? Surely they could have just said 'Nup, can't do it. Just shoot them, or something'...

Clearly, this unassaultable level scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They specifically addressed it with ruins. They didn't with the skyshield, but that's most likely for the same reason that the rules for most of the fortifications are incomplete... they just didn't bother finishing them before publishing 6th edition.

 insaniak wrote:
You realise that this interpretation leads you to crazy places, like models balancing on the top of trees as in Crablezworth's picture?

Not really, since the model has to have enough movement distance to get up there (don't forget to count vertical distance) AND you have to be able to place the model successfully (good luck on the top of a pointy tree). It's certainly less ridiculous than having models floating in midair.

Because, apparently, some people have issues with WMS applying to this situation...

So because your request for a house rule is denied your response it to insist that we need a different house rule to obtain the same goal? Why don't we just follow the rules instead?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Clearly, this unassaultable level scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They specifically addressed it with ruins. They didn't with the skyshield, but that's most likely for the same reason that the rules for most of the fortifications are incomplete... they just didn't bother finishing them before publishing 6th edition.

That's your assumption. The alternative is that the Skyshield is a defensive structure, so making it a better defensive position than a ruin is a good thing.

 Peregrine wrote:
So because your request for a house rule is denied your response it to insist that we need a different house rule to obtain the same goal? Why don't we just follow the rules instead?

No, because the way I feel the rules actually apply to this situation is rather counter-intuitive, I would prefer to use the more commonly accepted house rule that achieves the same effective end result but is easier for people to wrap their heads around.


You are of course free to disagree that the rules work the way I say they do, and given the odds of us ever winding up on opposite sides of the table, that is unlikely to ever cause a significant problem.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Because levitating around the battle field makes more sense than your assault just failing that turn?

No, models levitating around the battlefield doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately... Skyshield. Levitating. Ho!

The thing is, you could make the same argument about ruins. Why bother allowing models to assault a level up in ruins when there is no room for them to get there? Surely they could have just said 'Nup, can't do it. Just shoot them, or something'...

Clearly, this unassaultable level scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They specifically addressed it with ruins. They didn't with the skyshield, but that's most likely for the same reason that the rules for most of the fortifications are incomplete... they just didn't bother finishing them before publishing 6th edition.

permissive rule set remember?

Ruins give you permission for extra rules for assaults, the sky shield does not. If we want to deal with unsassaultable situations, then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with me levitating over a guard blob that are keeping me from assault a tank hiding in the corner?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ruins give you permission for extra rules for assaults, the sky shield does not.

Isn't that what I just said...?

If we want to deal with unsassaultable situations, then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with me levitating over a guard blob that are keeping me from assault a tank hiding in the corner?

Just as soon as you present the rule that allows you to do so, certainly.

This is a rule that allows models to ignore gravity and levitate up to the top of the skyshield. There is no such rule that applies to moving over the top of enemy models.

 insaniak wrote:
No, because the way I feel the rules actually apply to this situation is rather counter-intuitive, I would prefer to use the more commonly accepted house rule that achieves the same effective end result but is easier for people to wrap their heads around.

Which is your right, of course. Just don't present it as if the rules allow you to do it, just say "I think this is stupid, I prefer to house rule that you treat it as a ruin and can assault". I have a problem with your incorrect claims about the use of WMS and the difficult terrain rules, not your desire to have a sensible house rule.

 insaniak wrote:

If we want to deal with unsassaultable situations, then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with me levitating over a guard blob that are keeping me from assault a tank hiding in the corner?

Just as soon as you present the rule that allows you to do so, certainly.

This is a rule that allows models to ignore gravity and levitate up to the top of the skyshield. There is no such rule that applies to moving over the top of enemy models.

Odd, I don't see anything about ignoring gravity or levitating in the rules. But if WMS allows levitation, then you can levitate over a unit to get to a unit behind them. Clearly, this unassaultable scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They just didn't bother finishing thee rules before publishing 6th edition.

 Peregrine wrote:
Which is your right, of course. Just don't present it as if the rules allow you to do it, just say "I think this is stupid, I prefer to house rule that you treat it as a ruin and can assault".

Except that IS exactly what I was saying.

The difference is simply coming from the fact that you disagree as to how the rules actually work here, so you're seeing both of my options as house rules. I, obviously, see it somewhat differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
But if WMS allows levitation...

It doesn't.

The skyshield allows levitation.


WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
But if WMS allows levitation...

It doesn't.

The skyshield allows levitation.


WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.

Citation needed. The skyshield does nothing of the sort.

Yeah, I don't think we really need to climb back onto that roundabout yet again.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, I don't think we really need to climb back onto that roundabout yet again.

I agree, Just stop saying levitation and unassaultable. Neither one is the case here. Sure you might not be able to assault something you want for a turn or two, but how is that really any difference that the tank in a corner surrounded by troops? This recurring thread bugs me because people look at one snap shot and just give up, saying its unassaultable in this one situation. You have 5-7 turns to do something about it, and at some point you should be able to assault units on it, hence it is able to be assaulted.

 insaniak wrote:
WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.

No it doesn't. I've already quoted the rules demonstrating why this is wrong. WMS does not let you just declare that you're moving a model somewhere, you have to successfully place it in that location and then get your opponent to agree to let you use WMS.

sirlynchmob wrote:
but how is that really any difference that the tank in a corner surrounded by troops?

You can assault those troops instead. You can't attack the skyshield.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
but how is that really any difference that the tank in a corner surrounded by troops?

You can assault those troops instead. You can't attack the skyshield.

But I want to assault the tank, not the troops. If you can accept the tank can not be assaulted this turn, so I should do something else, then why can't you accept the same conclusion for the sky shield? you can't assault it this turn, do something else.

Look, if you want to play it as a ruin talk to your opponent about it during the pre game terrain discussion and feel them out on it. I'm sure there's plenty of players who are willing to play it that way.


As others have pointed out, the requirement for los still stands regardless of whether you need to be in base to base or not so depending on the ruin you can run into a similar situation where you can't assault.


I tend to play with as little asbtraction as possible when it comes to terrain. Obviously there has to be some climbing mechanic and the one for ruins works well for most things but it's important to have that detailed dicussion about everything before the game.

I also agree with you when it comes to fortifications, I'm not a fan of any of them and won't play againsts them unlesss I have to (tournament).