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.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If he wants to put it on the top floor then he can put it on the top level using WMS.

WMS would be fine if he's just worried about the model falling off... but the Ruins rules require the model to actually fit there. It doesn't.

Doesn't that make it impassable terrain to the Riptide?
Which he's explicitly allowed to stand on being Jetpack Infantry?

 Neorealist wrote:
This is technically legal. jet pack rule snippet: "...end their move on top of impassable terrain if it is actually possible to place the models on top of it..." which it is in this case.

Some advice I can offer: A) use the random terrain deployment rules and bring your own riptide (or anything else that would fit and take advantage of such a perch. see how 'he' likes it?) B) You can also suggest that such a position is tactically unfair. C) Or you can take advantage of the 'effectively' immobile location of the riptide and bring something that makes your opponent regret putting it up there. I suggest the latter approach since it is much more strategically satisfying.

For a grey area: perhaps bring a 'huge' 2-sided wall (made out of cardboard or similar) that happens to 'randomly' block LOS from the church wall to most of the rest of the board?

I don't know. I think that rule means actual impassible terrain, something the players have agreed on before hand cannot be traversed for whatever reason. If, for example, there was a butte with a flat surface on top. If the Riptide had enough movement to get to the top, then it could be placed there because of the jetpack rule.

There is nothing that says a ruins is impassible. And that top bit isn't a floor. But at the same time I am not sure that any rule really prevents him from doing it. Its pretty WAAC of him to use that kind of placement on an already very tough, hard hitting unit.

And thinking of battlements, you are allowed to balance models along the edges of those. No real difference other then saying, "this is a ruin and that is a battlement". They are both elevated bits of buildings with walls along the top floor.

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If he wants to put it on the top floor then he can put it on the top level using WMS.

WMS would be fine if he's just worried about the model falling off... but the Ruins rules require the model to actually fit there. It doesn't.

Doesn't that make it impassable terrain to the Riptide?
Which he's explicitly allowed to stand on being Jetpack Infantry?

Again, I am at work so cannot quick reference;

Being jetpack allows him to land in impassable terrain, but does that allowance include bypassing normal rules for movement and placement of a model. If that was the case, I could technically land a jetpack infantry on the ceiling of a room (impassable terrain), claim WMS as I cannot place my model without danger of it falling, and then be unassailable due to no other model except other jetpack infantry from being able to move into base to base.

Honestly, I would allow that, barely. If he says it is on the top floor, then no, because it can't fit. If he says that he is putting it up on the battlements, then sure. Honestly though, your taking things the long way. I have a good friend of mine that loved to put his heavy hitters in every building, ruin, etc, etc. Anything with elevation and plenty of protection from my 'nids. He stopped for the most part shortly after we agreed that every building is 1 HP, AV12, and i picked up my second Carnifex. If he wants to run with that annoying building, just assign a AV value to it and bring it down. People tend to stop doing putting their shiny toys on houses of cards when they fall every time and wind up getting the unit killed from the collapse.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Honestly, I would allow that, barely. If he says it is on the top floor, then no, because it can't fit. If he says that he is putting it up on the battlements, then sure. Honestly though, your taking things the long way. I have a good friend of mine that loved to put his heavy hitters in every building, ruin, etc, etc. Anything with elevation and plenty of protection from my 'nids. He stopped for the most part shortly after we agreed that every building is 1 HP, AV12, and i picked up my second Carnifex. If he wants to run with that annoying building, just assign a AV value to it and bring it down. People tend to stop doing putting their shiny toys on houses of cards when they fall every time and wind up getting the unit killed from the collapse.

Yup, ruins should have rules allowing models to assault them. More grievous oversight on GW part.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If he wants to put it on the top floor then he can put it on the top level using WMS.

WMS would be fine if he's just worried about the model falling off... but the Ruins rules require the model to actually fit there. It doesn't.

Doesn't that make it impassable terrain to the Riptide?
Which he's explicitly allowed to stand on being Jetpack Infantry?

Again, I am at work so cannot quick reference;

Being jetpack allows him to land in impassable terrain, but does that allowance include bypassing normal rules for movement and placement of a model. If that was the case, I could technically land a jetpack infantry on the ceiling of a room (impassable terrain), claim WMS as I cannot place my model without danger of it falling, and then be unassailable due to no other model except other jetpack infantry from being able to move into base to base.

Can you get to the ceiling of the room with 6" (or 12" for jump packs) of movement?

Impassible Terrain has as much to do with it being "Impassible" to the physical model itself as Dangerous Terrain is likely to result in the physical miniature being destroyed.

Ruins don't have roofs. Therefore, there is no roof of Impassible Terrain (as with a normal building) on top, only the uppermost level.

Moving Within Ruins, pg 98: "Accordingly, only Beasts, Infantry, Jetbikes, Skimmers and all types of Jump and Jet Pack units can move on the upper levels of the ruin - and only if the model can physically be placed there". I would like to note that it does not become Impassible Terrain to models that cannot be placed there.

Wobbly Model Syndrome does not entitle you to place models where they cannot fit. It simply is a safeguard against balancing acts such as this (when legal).

Wobbly Model Syndrome, pg 11: "we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location". WMS is not a rule. It does not allow a model that cannot be placed on the upper level of the ruin to be placed on the upper level of the ruin.

It would be on the highest declared level of the ruin, and only if you agreed prior to the game starting that monstrous creatures could climb that ruin. It Specified Jet Pack units can, but that is only a subytpe of Monsterous Creatures which are not one of the allowed units types on upper levels unless you decide its sturdy enough per page 98.

The Spikes on top of the Ruines are not another level unless declared as such, otherwise it would be WMS and on the toppmost declared level.

Rumbleguts wrote:

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Honestly, I would allow that, barely. If he says it is on the top floor, then no, because it can't fit. If he says that he is putting it up on the battlements, then sure. Honestly though, your taking things the long way. I have a good friend of mine that loved to put his heavy hitters in every building, ruin, etc, etc. Anything with elevation and plenty of protection from my 'nids. He stopped for the most part shortly after we agreed that every building is 1 HP, AV12, and i picked up my second Carnifex. If he wants to run with that annoying building, just assign a AV value to it and bring it down. People tend to stop doing putting their shiny toys on houses of cards when they fall every time and wind up getting the unit killed from the collapse.

Yup, ruins should have rules allowing models to assault them. More grievous oversight on GW part.

Pretty sure you can assault ruins. They just need to be occupied. If his riptide is in, or on a building, I would bring that building down.

Any glance on an occupied building is an automatic wound on one random occupant with an Ignores Cover rule. Seems like an easy way to get passed the toughness of riptide. while you're bringing the building down.

Buildings and Ruins are not the same thing.

Would it get cover for being 'in' area terrain?

AlexRae wrote:
Would it get cover for being 'in' area terrain?

Only if it is in area terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

AlexRae wrote:
Would it get cover for being 'in' area terrain?

Only if it is in area terrain.

Brilliant.

The real question is why are you consistently setting the board up like this?

He's certainly allowed to do this, and I would even allow other models that can physically be placed on there to sit on it after deployment.

It's cheesy and unsportsmanlike but it's allowed.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Its pretty WAAC of him to use that kind of placement on an already very tough, hard hitting unit.

So it wouldn't be WAAC if he placed a single grot up there? Since when do the terrain rules consider how powerful a unit is?

 Peregrine wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
Its pretty WAAC of him to use that kind of placement on an already very tough, hard hitting unit.

So it wouldn't be WAAC if he placed a single grot up there? Since when do the terrain rules consider how powerful a unit is?

No.
And
Always.

Running Nidzilla against people who place chosen on the roof of unoccupied bastions makes those chosen models near immune to my army. I don't consider it Waac just mean.

If I was running against your friend I would send a Mawlock up there and push him down ! Just Taylor your list for the move you know he's gonna do.

Where is this whole you can't deploy on a wall feeling coming from?

Via the rules...he can deploy it there just like I can deploy a land raider on top of a bastion.

GW has once again missed the boat on "during deployment you cannot deploy or have a unit enter from reserve into terrain it could not normally move in, out, on, or off of"

I mean, you could deploy beasts on a ruin level...they just couldn't ever get down...like cats up a tree.

Stormbreed wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
Its pretty WAAC of him to use that kind of placement on an already very tough, hard hitting unit.

So it wouldn't be WAAC if he placed a single grot up there? Since when do the terrain rules consider how powerful a unit is?

No.
And
Always.

Running Nidzilla against people who place chosen on the roof of unoccupied bastions makes those chosen models near immune to my army. I don't consider it Waac just mean.

If I was running against your friend I would send a Mawlock up there and push him down ! Just Taylor your list for the move you know he's gonna do.

Hmm, technically,they are occupying the bastion. They must first go through the inside of the bastion to reach the roof through the access points, or deploy directly onto it. They just decided not to occupy the bastion proper. Most of the people I know always rule occupation as either on or inside the building.

The FAQ spells out that models in battlements are not embarked in the building.
One of the stupider building FAQs.

rigeld2 wrote:
The FAQ spells out that models in battlements are not embarked in the building.
One of the stupider building FAQs.

They are right, with them being ruled as separate buildings, that someone on the battlements is not embarked in the building. They cannot be outside and inside at the same time. They can still be occupying the building. The way that I read it is much like the following;

If a person is directly in the footprint of a building, like the bastion, sitting on the battlements, they are still directly affected by what happens to the building. If we were discussing battlements attached to the bastion, then the models would be fine, as it is possible to have battlements that can stand alone, provided they are attached to something else that is still standing, even it's own supports. Because the battlements of the bastion are still a part of the bastion itself, if one goes, both go as well, as you cant have a free floating floor. They aren't inside the building, but as long as they are standing inside the footprint, they are still occupying it. This is mildly outside the topic however, so we can discuss this in a different thread if we have to. I just remembered I have to dig up every fact to present to some new players as to why at 2000pts they do need more than a 1 hq and 2 troop requirement, so they can't shoehorn their way out of it.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The FAQ spells out that models in battlements are not embarked in the building.
One of the stupider building FAQs.

They are right, with them being ruled as separate buildings, that someone on the battlements is not embarked in the building. They cannot be outside and inside at the same time. They can still be occupying the building. The way that I read it is much like the following;

If a person is directly in the footprint of a building, like the bastion, sitting on the battlements, they are still directly affected by what happens to the building. If we were discussing battlements attached to the bastion, then the models would be fine, as it is possible to have battlements that can stand alone, provided they are attached to something else that is still standing, even it's own supports. Because the battlements of the bastion are still a part of the bastion itself, if one goes, both go as well, as you cant have a free floating floor. They aren't inside the building, but as long as they are standing inside the footprint, they are still occupying it. This is mildly outside the topic however, so we can discuss this in a different thread if we have to. I just remembered I have to dig up every fact to present to some new players as to why at 2000pts they do need more than a 1 hq and 2 troop requirement, so they can't shoehorn their way out of it.

Even though the FAQ tells you to treat the battlements as different from the bastion?

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

Trust me I'd like to believe I can attack the bastion if the guys are just "on top" but I've been shot down on that idea by different people.

And yea we're getting off topic!

Just to be clear the ruins rules state: "...all types of... ...Jet Pack units can move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can physically be placed there...". There is nothing about the word 'fit'. It should be taken as given that the riptide can in fact be physically placed exactly where the OP describes for this particular ruin.

rigeld2 wrote:
The FAQ spells out that models in battlements are not embarked in the building.
One of the stupider building FAQs.

There are sensible building related FAQ out there?

But surely the wall and the top of it is not a level?

Could he be placed on the top of te imperial statue (the one of the space marine) - obviously it would be near impossible to get it balanced, although I imagine it could be done.

Although not a ruin it is a piece of terrain and the model is on top of it?


I dont really think its GW fault that they didnt plan for people having their monstrous creatures standing on spikes or doing a tight rope act on the top of a wall.

Christopher300 wrote:
But surely the wall and the top of it is not a level?

Could he be placed on the top of te imperial statue (the one of the space marine) - obviously it would be near impossible to get it balanced, although I imagine it could be done.

Although not a ruin it is a piece of terrain and the model is on top of it?


I dont really think its GW fault that they didnt plan for people having their monstrous creatures standing on spikes or doing a tight rope act on the top of a wall.

I've actually had the question of what defines a level come up before...

During a game we were playing a game were i had a unit on a hill that was gently sloping upward as i walked up it but then sharply jutted down like a cliff.

As my opponent was playing bikes and wished to assault me we had to decide if it would count as a level. On a basis of equal play and rules consistency. We ruled that in order to assault my guys he would have to travel around to the back of the hill and could get on top of it once the height of the slope was 2" or less.

It seemed fair at the time.

To the best of my awareness, there is no rules-specific definition of 'level' which would preclude the riptide being placed on top of the spiky bits. After all, the model is (technically) placed in the highest level in the ruin within the movement range of the model and in accordance with the rules.

To deny the riptide the option of being placed there is to presume there is a set limit 'above' (vertically) a given terrain feature a model can be placed and still be considered 'in' a terrain feature. I don't believe there is rules-support for this stance.

Yeah I'm pretty much resigned at this point to the fact that he can legally do that, even if it can be seen as unsportsmanlike, or WAAC behaviour by some.
As a character reference, he brought an O'Vesa Star against our buddy who just got into war hammer and it was like his 3rd game ever.
I would like it if GW would FAQ ruins rules to say something to the effect of
"Accordingly, only Beasts, Infantry, Jetbikes, Skimmers and all types ofJump and Jet Pack units can move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can physically be placed there; where a level is defined as a continuous horizontal surface"

but oh well.

Funny that some took the suggestion of placing a model on spikes rather unsafe and claims of bumping and whacking the table was "unsportsmanlike" I would think more of my opponent's reaction would be quite severe so it would be unlikely anyone would try to knock it off on purpose.

I wonder if there is something in the rules where we could target the ruin and cause a collapse.

At least you can target him from pretty much anywhere since line of sight is not a problem.

BRB page 98
Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper
levels of ruins. Accordingly, only Beasts, Infantry, Jetbikes,
Skimmers and all types of Jump and Jet Pack units can
move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can
physically be placed there

See monstrous creature here? Then no he is not allowed to put his riptide there. _AND ONLY IF THE MODEL CAN PHYSICALLY BE PLACED THERE.

balancing it on top is not placed.


Monstrous creatures are in the same section of the rule book as all of the other unit listed on p98 as able to move on top of ruins and deliberately left off page 98 with bikes artillery cavalry and jet bikes.
Even though it is a jet pack unit it is a monstrous creature as well it a a monster with a jet pack. When I have rules issues like this I always contact GW via e-mail and then simply print the e-mail off and show it to whoever does not have the common sense to know that a ruin would collapse if a riptide were on top of it. you also could always "accidentally" bump the table and watch his face as the riptide wobbles...

Rothrich,

The Riptide is a Jet-Pack unit and the core of the issue is the fact it can be physically placed in that location.