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.

So anyway.....

Coteaz Rolls 4++ and Ignores cover. I was thinking I want my Land Raider somewhere it can see everything and they will shoot at it w/ its 4++ Ignoring cover. Can I put it on top of the Fortress of Redemptions tower, on top of a bastion, or on top of the Fortress Crack Storm Missile Launcher? Does a Vehicle take the increased dangerous terrain falling test if it moves down to ground level or the building is destroyed?? It would still get the 4++ tho going down?

Can't it go there as long as the model will stay?

 Mythra wrote:
Coteaz Rolls 4++ and Ignores cover. I was thinking I want my Land Raider somewhere it can see everything and they will shoot at it w/ its 4++ Ignoring cover.

Since you really don't make much sense I'll try and guess what you're saying..
Are you talking about rolling a 4 on the Divination table? (4++ is an invulnerable save, not a roll on a table)
The "Perfect Timing" Psychic power? That will have no effect on a Land Raider.
And no you can't balance a Land Raider on battlements. If it doesn't fit fully it can't go.

Yes perfect timing. Why can't you cast it on a Land Raider? If Coteaz is inside can't he cast on the vehicle? What I miss?

Also I see nothing about must fully fit. It isn't wobbly it stays there.

I'll give you the one about no Raider on top of the Bastion just b/c it seems silly.

Perfect Timing targets the Psykers unit, which excludes the Land Raider.
Forewarning (the 4++) can target the raider.

 Mythra wrote:
Yes perfect timing. Why can't you cast it on a Land Raider? If Coteaz is inside can't he cast on the vehicle? What I miss?

You missed what specifically the power targets.

You're also missing page 95 "How Many Models" under the battlements section.

Ponders that a little more actually.

Normally I would state that buildings are also impassable terrain. As the vehicle in question lacks any rules that allows it to pass through impassable terrain, then getting the thing onto the roof is a very problematic feet. Logic would dictate that there is no way for it to get onto the building, at least not without anti-grav technology.

After all, it isn't just going to climb the ladder... or is it?

This is something I am still going back and forth on, I can find counter arguments to arguments I put forth in my mind, then counters to those as well. From the current way it is written, through a long chain of rules and counter rules, I think it might very well be possible. Not because it is a good idea, logical or clearly written as such but because of the opposite. It is referencing sections of other rules, using general terminology when more precise writing is needed, and using words that should never be seen in a rule book because they are just too vague. You know, writing like normal when it comes to Game Workshop.

I will answer it below, as this is going to be a touch long.

Even if a tank could fit on the battlements (see: 'How many models?' Page 95), the only way for it to get there is by a ladder (or similar 'Access Point'), meaning you would have to rely on your opponent agreeing, before the game, that Vehicles can climb ladders.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
Even if a tank could fit on the battlements (see: 'How many models?' Page 95), the only way for it to get there is by a ladder (or similar 'Access Point'), meaning you would have to rely on your opponent agreeing, before the game, that Vehicles can climb ladders.

Emphasis mine.

The underscored section is not true.

If the Bastion was in the deployment zone the tank can be deployed upon it, provided the tank could fit on the battlements. So there is a way for a tank to be deployed on terrain such as the bastion.

Good news, did a hour of research on this matter and I got it down to one now. It is all going to be based around the term transport capacity. Again, it comes down to some shoddy word play and possible broken arguments based there off, which I hope someone an find better worded rules to derail. Cause it is clear to me that tanks don't climb ladders as much as I want to laugh at that image....

The one remaining argument was based around the fact battlement make exception to the standard building rules. That is all that page 95 and half of 96 are, how battlements differ from buildings and the way to deal with that. The real concern here is they remove the 'Transport Capacity' rule from battlements, and instead give you a different system of seeing if your unit can occupy the battlement. Transport Capacity was a rule granted to buildings in the previous section, and singled out as with words like 'unlike buildings' to show the rule is not in play.

Another rule might of been able to fill in the gap, occupying buildings, but the whole paragraph tells you to refer embarking, disembarking and Transport Capacity rules and apply them here. They even highlight transport capacity is included by having that be the example though they didn't put the full section down.

This means we have limitations that would prevent a tank from occupying any part of the building, so no climbing a ladder, but they are part of a rule we are now being told to ignore. This is made a little bit more problematic as later down the page it talks about how to deal with units that would be forbidden to embark under transport capacity rules. I favor the idea that this rule is giving us permission to embark a unit we would otherwise be unable to, but the terminology used lacks embarking at all and appears to be creating an exception to the usual difficult terrain test which raises even more questions.

So in the end I am looking at a pile of rules telling me to reference other rules, with a ton of exceptional rules thrown on top. It isn't as easy as an exceptional rule completely over-writing one of the standards, or even other exceptional rules. To get to the conclusion that vehicles can not climb ladders and embark onto battlements we need to butcher some rules all together. We need to take an exception rule, exchange the paragraph within over top of a section of another rule, one which is telling us to refer to other rules in the book, all with their own pile of exceptions that might or might not be applied depending on how you read the wording of all these rules, and the whole thing that started it all.

However, that is probably the way the rules where intended to read!

Personally:
I'm just going to play it like the easy and simple way they should of stated. I am going to include all the rules in the section labeled transport down to the one labeled fliers, ignoring their examples completely which point other parts of the vehicle section pointlessly. Those 10 rules do not appear to cause any real conflict with the building section of the book, as the few which do cause issue are made moot. They are the ones which have specific, building-section, rules that clearly apply in any case.

Tanks should not be able to go up ladders, even if I find a way to make 'transport capacity' go away for the battlement.

Questions:
Do you play that jump pack/jet pack infantry units can occupy buildings?
What happens if you want a skimmer to end their turn on top of the building?
How does something occupy the battlement?
Do you treat occupying the same as embarking?
Could you, in theory, have something sitting on the battlement but not technically 'embarked' in it?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
Even if a tank could fit on the battlements (see: 'How many models?' Page 95), the only way for it to get there is by a ladder (or similar 'Access Point'), meaning you would have to rely on your opponent agreeing, before the game, that Vehicles can climb ladders.

Emphasis mine.

The underscored section is not true.

If the Bastion was in the deployment zone the tank can be deployed upon it, provided the tank could fit on the battlements. So there is a way for a tank to be deployed on terrain such as the bastion.

While I can't fault that from a pure RAW point of view, it would seem reasonable and logical (to me anyway) that the rule forbidding units from setting up in Impassable Terrain (page 121), should be extended to include terrain that is 'Impassable' to a particular unit (e.g. a tank on a Bastion).

Regardless, if someone insisted on being allowed to do it (perhaps his forces carefully airlifted a tank up there), I would merely concentrate on collapsing the building as it would destroy the vehicle along with it.

Change the problem to skimmer if that makes it easier for you, but it is irrelevant. I would also like to point out that you can not target a building unless someone is inside of it. Another part of the problem surrounding battlements is the fact it is technically an occupied building but doesn't follow all the rules for an occupied building. I'm still not even sure if I can say technically, cause it talks about being 'embarked' but having your models on the table where they can be interacted with directly.

One of the problem I have encountered, which killed a past argument I was forming, was this: Buildings are not automatically impassable terrain! There is a section that talks about buildings as impassable terrain, and puts forth some limitations that need to be met before it can be considered such. The largest part of declaring a building as impassable for all models. That is the problem with your interpretation, if the rules treat all buildings as impassable then infantry can not occupy them or the battlements.

If anything, the more and more you look at it, that battlement is a transport....

That might prevent you from parking a tank on top of it, but for a whole bunch of other reasons. The same reasoning would also prevent you from putting skimmers on top of any building bar those that have been declared as impassable terrain. It can't even be argued as open ground, though some rules tell you to treat it as such but with limitations that clearly spell out which units can treat it as open ground and which can not. Hell, technically, even a flyer couldn't end the movement phase with the base of the model on the battlement, as that would be technically embarking them. If that is even part of the requirement to embark which leaves me with even more questions....

Even if we take the transport mentality, which the more I look at it as being the correct one, the whole thing is still problematic. This can be boiled down to the use of such terms as 'aspects of' units without highlighting which individual aspects are being addressed. They are compounded by rules referencing other rules, but wording examples and other paragraphs in way that suggest you ignore parts of the rule being referenced without being clear on which parts or why. Yet that butchered interpretation may very well be how they intended all those compiling rules to be read, stream lining an aspect of the game even at the loss of a few vehicle interactions with it.

Advice: If you want a good laugh, talk to your opponent about allowing vehicles to climb ladders. Just the image alone seems to be worth it, regardless of what we conclude about the rule. Hell, it could be made all the more hilarious by the fact it could be technically possible with the right sort of argument.

Yeah but it could deploy there which meant it could have been teleported on to the battlements.

So a skimmer can't land on top of battlements? I know it can land on top of buildings b/c it says if there is space it can land on impassable terrain. What is the top of a regular building considered?

 Mythra wrote:
Yeah but it could deploy there which meant it could have been teleported on to the battlements.

So a skimmer can't land on top of battlements? I know it can land on top of buildings b/c it says if there is space it can land on impassable terrain. What is the top of a regular building considered?

Assuming a vehicle can physically fit on the battlements, then yes, technically you can deploy it there, even though it couldn't move there. Although from a realistic, 'immersion within the game' point of view, I would consider it a bit of a dick move. Am I alone in this opinion?

Page 95 clearly states that if you have to balance models then they can't be deployed in buildings. From your post it seems the only thing you took from page 95 was the 'use your imagination' part.

MarsNZ wrote:
Page 95 clearly states that if you have to balance models then they can't be deployed in buildings. From your post it seems the only thing you took from page 95 was the 'use your imagination' part.

Not sure who you're responding to. . . ?

That is the big question right now: What type of terrain is the battlement?

Regardless of what people think, it isn't impassable terrain. I do not accept an argument that it is possible to have some type of 'unique impassable terrain' that would allow models without pass through, enter or exit that terrain even if they where lacking the rules to allow them to move through impassable terrain. The very definition of impassable terrain, the only reason this rule exists, is to prevent that exact situation. Impassable terrain is a flag, given to terrain, to show it uses the impassable terrain flag. If they intend for it to ignore the impassable terrain rules, then they simply don't flag it as impassable.

However if you believe I am wrong, please point me to a paragraph that states all buildings are impassable terrain.

If you think it is going to be page 93 then I recommend you take a closer look at it. It is the closest the book comes to putting buildings and impassable terrain together so it is relevant for people to read it. It outlines when a building is to be considered impassable terrain, meaning if it doesn't meet the requirements then it is not impassable terrain. Personally the biggest one I want to bring your attention to is the fact your opponent can veto you on this matter. Yep, simply by playing against someone whom doesn't want a building to be impassable prevents you from fielding any that could classify as impassable terrain.


My answer, thanks to all the rules jumped in my head right now is: Buildings are transports and at this point I can only ask that you let me go cry in a corner because of it.

If a build and battlements are transports then a transport can't go on a transport tho. Well the top of a reg. building isn't a transport.

I can't even claim a regular roof, one with no access points but clearly has space for models to move around up there, is safe. Good rule of thumb, to simply get rid of the whole problem, is to state your intention to treat them as impassable terrain at the start of the game. I don't know if you can declare only part of a building as impassable but having your opponents permission makes that moot to begin with. If it really is such a concern, simply ask if he has a problem allowing vehicles that could feasibly get on top of a building to occupy the battlement as long as it was empty prior as well. I know I wouldn't have a problem giving mobility to vehicles that clearly should have the ability to land on top of buildings!

Still focusing on a rules as written interpretation, by default these buildings are not considered impassable terrain even if they can not be accessed. It is not the impassable terrain rules which prevent a regular model from accessing the roof. It is the 'Reaching the Roof' rules outlined in the battlement section that is denying it. If you work around these limitations, and there are methods, then you can freely put units on top of a roof that has no access points. These units suffer no penalty for doing so, can move around quite freely and even leave the battlement though it most likely is through the 'leaping down' method. All of this is forbidden under impassable terrain rules.

It also creates a problem for units trying to move into the building, as impassable terrain can never be entered unless the model has specialized rules allowing it. The few that do have such specialized rules are forbidden from entering transports to start with, under a whole different sets of rules. If impassable terrain rules where meant to be applied here, there would be no way for you to enter a building unless it had battlement access as well well as floors that clearly where free of obstructions. This isn't a 'all or nothing' situation, you can have parts of a building that can not be entered, but this is denied by the 'access point' rule and nothing to do with the terrain being flagged as impassable.

Still... at least it stops you from putting a tank up there, so I guess there is that. Of course, forbids you from from whole range of other things which we all considered to be logical. No parking your skimmers on top of buildings anymore, unless it has been declared impassable. Don't even know how that will address flyers, guess they would be safe as long as the base wasn't on the building. It would also lead to a situation where you could technically embark a flying monstrous creature into a transport, though at least it isn't being crammed into a metal box.

Like I said, it seems so very broken... so please, please, show me a part where it says it was joking about them being transports....

 Mythra wrote:
If a build and battlements are transports then a transport can't go on a transport tho. Well the top of a reg. building isn't a transport.

Not sure what you're going on about here mate.

And JinxDragon: You'd make a better argument if you were a little more concise in what you're trying to say.

I've been up all night, reading over the same section of the rule book, trying to come to a different conclusion then the one I had. Every time someone posted a new situation, additional incite or what not I reviewed how that fits with the model. More input led to more discoveries and even more different ways the rules compile. Sorry if that doesn't make it easy for me to figure out how to put this in simple terms, something that doesn't come to me in the best of times.

In short, I am still unsure what to make of it myself.

Edit: wrong thread, please ignore

The problem is that the rules I am reading do clearly state what a building is, and those rules are transport in all but name.

The rules laid out on page 92 state that all buildings use aspects of transports. Occupying Building rules on page 93 back this up by again stating that all the normal rules for embarking and disembarking apply, including unit type limitations set forth in the capacity section. Even the Firing and Attacking sections on that page all are on part with transport equivalent, though with some minor alterations like two models from a firing point instead of one. Clearly we have paragraphs filled with rules all telling us to treat all this using rules designed around transports.

That isn't overly complex, but when battlements are included it gets even more fun.

Battlements are governed by all the basic building rules that other buildings follow. While a fair amount of ink is devoted to the idea of battlements, these rules are still found within the building section of the rule book. If you need a direct paragraph the first one of the battlement section also cements this realization, stating they are part of a multi-structure building. Nothing we can do will conclude that the battlement is not part of the building and allow us to ignore the rest of the building rules put forth till this point.

This includes rules about 'capacity' which prevents certain unit types from 'embarking.' In fact, within the battlement section you will find the word embark or embarked when referring to models placed on the battlement. That terminology is well dictated in the other sections of the rule book, transports mostly which is what you have been told to reference, so we would need a good compelling argument as to why we can ignore it as meaning anything other then 'units in a transport.'

Other sections of the battlement rules also continue to support the whole argument of them as a transport.

When you are accessing the roof it isn't by a roll or seeing if you have enough inches to move. Instead you move to an access point and are suddenly on the roof, able to place the models up there regardless of their remaining movement 'inches.' This is also something possible thanks to the paragraph telling us to use access points, capacities and embarking rules from the transport section. It does have some interesting exceptions though, as some access points might be in the building and it tells you how to resolve that.

There is even a section talking about Jet Packs and Jump Packs being allowed onto the battlements. This is very important, as per standard embarking rules they are forbidden inside of transports. Nothing in their basic rules forbid them from standing on terrain, in fact they are one of the few units with 'can end in impassable terrain' special rules, so they have even more mobility then a standard unit. That they where given permission to do something in the building section of the book informs me that there was a rule in place forbidding them to do it, and that rule has to be the capacity limit as defined within the transport section, given the context.

Apart from the FAQ, where you are NOT embarked in the building if you are on the battlements. The FAQ just muddies things further

I really hate FAQ's, I really do. Not only do I forget to take them into consideration the vast majority of the time but tend to make things worse and not better. If it isn't conclusions that make the logic section of my head hurt it is the boundary between 'fluff' and 'crunch' getting weaker. I will go and have a look over this FAQ, I don't need sleep anyhow. Hell, right now I am hoping that it will put the whole 'transport' angle aside, though it really makes a huge 'what is it then?' question left behind.

All cause I want my tanks to be able to climb ladders, damn it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

I wonder, is this the FAQ question you where referencing:

Q . If a fortification you are in is charged, are you run its occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulter from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport?
A : Yes. Note , however , that models defending a fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the fortification.

Okay this wasn't so bad, oh I found enough to rant about but the question you where bringing up is not as broken as I feared. It isn't even, technically, relevant to this debate. It was requesting some additional information in a exact situation that was actually quite gray. Again, it stems from the fact we are told to treat the building like a transport vehicle in some cases but not given a list of what all of those cases will be. Either way, what was missing from the 'attacking buildings' section was clear wording allow overwatch to take place and some people wanted to play this as buildings do not get overwatch.

I would have to go forth to say whomever answered the FAQ was simply trying to clarify that simply assaulting the building doesn't automatically allow all of the embarked units to fire overwatch. If they had simply said Yes, then people could start arguing that unit on the battlement get to fire overwatch as well as the units actually being charged. As battlements also have additional special rules that would of been 'overturned' as well by a simple yes answer, they needed to ensure that conclusion isn't reached. Units on the battlement are already forbidden from being targeted by close combat attacks, so it would lead to a situation where a unit not being targeted is firing overwatch... well, outside of us tau.

Yet the terminology was so terrible it could be used as an argument as to why units do not embark onto battlements, even with all the embarking rules

Instead of pointing out that battlement units have their own rules when it comes to assault and overwatch, they used the words words that they are not "embarked in" the building. Now this doesn't rule out the argument that they are 'embarked on' the battlements but it is damn poor writing as a quick glance comes to that conclusion! That is very broken, literally tearing up all most 90% of the battlement page, all to try and say that battlement units can not fire overwatch, which didn't seem in doubt at all to me.

An easier and simpler solution would of been to point out that mutli-part building rules already address the fact you treat each section as a separate building, which also prevents me from trying to shoot overwatch from a building with 'wings' that are being occupied.

Ummm, this is pretty simple actually:

BRB p. 95, Battlements: "A building with battlements is a multi-part building"

BRB p. 95, Battlements and Building Damage: "Accordingly, if the battlements are damaged, any unit on the battlements suffers the same number of hits as a unit inside a building would, but these are resolved at Strength 3, not Strength 6".

BRB p. 96, Assaulting The Battlements: "The battlements take 1 hit from a thrown grenade, just like any other building"

--> Read: Battlements are a building.

BRB p. 92, Multiple Part Buildings: "A unit in one part of the building can move to an adjacent and unoccupied building by declaring which they are moving into."

BRB p. 93, Occupying Buildings: "All of the normal rules apply, so only one infantry unit, plus any Independent Characters that have joined them, may occupy a building at a time."

-->Read: Battlements cannot be occupied by vehicles.

So, in short, vehicles cannot occupy the battlements, as they are prohibited from occupying a building and the battlements are a building.

Greyknight12 you also need to take the FAQ's into account.

Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on page 95.

The issue here is if you embark onto a battlement as per the occupy building rule.

There are now things brought to my attention, like that damn FAQ, which has made it even more of a gray area right when I thought I had settled down on a good answer. People can now argue the fact you are not 'embarked in' a building if you are on battlements and that the battlements 'simply give a cover save.' All because of the poor use of terminology put forth in that FAQ, thanks to a handful of unrelated questions that I am opting to ignore....

There's also an FAQ allowing you to Deep Strike onto Battlements.
You can't Deep Strike into a transport.

So no, you do not get to put a Land Raider on a Fortress. Period.