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.

Let me set a secnario

You playing Big Guns Never Tire, you have placed a fortress of redemption on the table at one end is an objective roughly 3" from the fortress, at the other end is your scoring unit of devestators.

The last turn of the game you elect to leap down placing your scoring devestators that survive 3" from the base of the fortress but at the far end next to the objective several inches further than the models technically should be able to get to.

I know this is in bad taste but can you find a rule in the book that forbids this type of trash play?

kranki wrote:
I know this is in bad taste but can you find a rule in the book that forbids this type of trash play?

How is it in bad taste? It's legal by both RAW and RAI, and you have to take a serious risk to do it. The leaping down rules don't say "you can only do this if you won't get to score an objective", so calling it a "trash play" makes about as much sense as whining about "trash play" because your opponent used a run move to put a unit on an objective.

Also, note that a fortress of redemption consists of several buildings, and the leaping down rules do not give you permission to place the surviving models within 3" of a different building in the same fortification.

As Peregrine said, the FoR is made up of a few buildings, so while yes you can do what you said to "hop" across a building, this cannot be done with the FoR because of it's multiple building parts.

FoR was a bad example then. Imaging a single building 20" in length and you leap off at one end but place the model at the other this is a net gain in one move before running of 23".

kranki wrote:
FoR was a bad example then. Imaging a single building 20" in length and you leap off at one end but place the model at the other this is a net gain in one move before running of 23".

So we're supposed to imagine something that doesn't exist in the rules, and blame the rules rather than the fact that you made a 20" building without breaking it into sub-buildings like the rules tell you to do?

OK let me make it clearer as you are missing the point.

I have one model placed in one of the corners of the battlement of a 12 x 12" building (biggest footprint for a single building) outside the building 3" from the corner furthest away from my model is an objective.

In the last turn of the game I leap from the battlements at the furthest point on the building away from the objective, but when I place my model I place it next to the objective on the far side of the building.

This to me seems legal rules wise but a little unseemly.

kranki wrote:
In the last turn of the game I leap from the battlements at the furthest point on the building away from the objective, but when I place my model I place it next to the objective on the far side of the building.

Yes, that's exactly how it works, if you survive the fall.

This to me seems legal rules wise but a little unseemly.

Why? If you're worried about a late-turn objective claim/contest then kill the unit before it jumps down. It's no different than a squad of jetbikes moving 48" to claim an objective.

kranki wrote:
...but a little unseemly.

Why?

If the unit was embarked in a 12" long vehicle, they could do the exact same thing. It's just part of the abstraction used to deal with models embarking into things. The only difference is that with battlements you physically place the models up there. If the battlements were just treated like an open-topped vehicle, nobody would even raise an eyebrow at that tactic.

So you can't see why carrying out a 20"+ move at the end of the game due to a this over site in the rules is a little off.

Also as you pointed out a model in a vehicle is not placed on the board so its not the same in anyway.

If there was an access point into the building from the battlements within 8" of the model and an exit point to the building right next to the objective you wouldn't need to leap from the battlements. In this case the only other way to get to the objective would be spend 2 turns moving.

I think the better example would be to use ruins, as you do technically embark onto a battlement so people could easily argue you are doing the same as any other embarked unit. Ruins have the benefit of also inform us, poorly but they inform us, that models can opt to leap down instead of normally descending between floors. The sentence then directs you to the very same process used by battlements. Therefor, your example using battlements would be valid and better off using Ruins.

With the right sized ruin, a large enough squad on top of it, a single model could end up more then 20 inches from the point they started but then why are you playing with a 20+ inch long ruin?....

 insaniak wrote:

kranki wrote:
...but a little unseemly.

Why?

If the unit was embarked in a 12" long vehicle, they could do the exact same thing. It's just part of the abstraction used to deal with models embarking into things. The only difference is that with battlements you physically place the models up there. If the battlements were just treated like an open-topped vehicle, nobody would even raise an eyebrow at that tactic.

With an open topped vehicle the unit inside has the ability to shoot from any point of the hull. If we go with your statement then the position of a model on the top of a bastion shouldn't matter at all.. However the rules on page 95 state that the models still use the normal rules for LoS...going both directions. So, apparently, positioning does matter.

That said, I do agree that RAW the model can end up anywhere within 3" of the base.. regardless of if the battlements are 6" across or 20" across. I think the reasoning is more along the lines of the fact that GW doesn't produce a model with battlements larger than about 6" or so and therefore wasn't much of a concern; at that size the unit is going to be spread out across it. So if one model goes over the left wall then all models need to be able to go over that wall to keep coherency like a bunch of dumb lemmings. Weee**splat**Weee**splat**Weee...

kranki wrote:
So you can't see why carrying out a 20"+ move at the end of the game due to a this over site in the rules is a little off.

Given that for some units it is possible to do this without battlements being involved, no, I don't see why it's a little off.

If there was an access point into the building from the battlements within 8" of the model and an exit point to the building right next to the objective you wouldn't need to leap from the battlements. In this case the only other way to get to the objective would be spend 2 turns moving.

Yes... or you can choose to jump off, and potentially kill yourself, in exchange for doing it faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
If we go with your statement then the position of a model on the top of a bastion shouldn't matter at all..

What? I specifically pointed out that the physical placement of the models is the primary difference between being embarked in a vehicle and being embarked on battlements.

kranki wrote:
So you can't see why carrying out a 20"+ move at the end of the game due to a this over site in the rules is a little off.

You still haven't provided any reason why this is an oversight in the rules instead of being something that you just don't like losing to.

If there was an access point into the building from the battlements within 8" of the model and an exit point to the building right next to the objective you wouldn't need to leap from the battlements. In this case the only other way to get to the objective would be spend 2 turns moving.

Whether or not there's an access point is irrelevant, you can still jump down. The question is whether you take more time to use access points and do it safely, or lose a bunch of models by jumping down.