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.

Fort Network says place in contact w/ other forts so can I put the Bastion on top of the landing pad?

I see no reason why not

Is "in contact" with the same as "on top of"?

its in contact with the top

Whats the benefit here?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Whats the benefit here?

Guess it would give the Bastion a 4+ invun save, as well as anyone in or on it. Would probably make the bastion almost impossible to assault either since you probably cannot then get anyone into base contact with the bastion.

Assault advantage, 4+ Inv saves, Vision for the fire points and the weapon on top of the bastion, I can even give my titan cover saves behind that, and I could even then put the aegis line and it gun up there so it has a +4 inv save also.

I don't think the bastion would get an invuln save. Unless the wording changed, the save only applies to units (which the bastion is not).

The Imperial Strongpoint tells you to place terrain IAW each fortifications individual data sheet. Page 120 says fortifications may not be placed within 3" of each other. I can't find any quote that says different fortifications bought in a network must all be in base contact with one another, so I'd say you follow the normal terrain rules that don't allow two fortifications to be stacked together on top of each other.

Assault advantage really wouldn't work...As the precedent set by the Aegis and how to assault if you cannot get your unit between the line and other units would apply.

The new book assault strong hold lets you place them together.

It also states in the new they now function like other units in your army except an enemy can capture them.

I'm reading the Stronghold Assault book. Page 52 in the digital edition specifically says to use the data sheets for the individual components in the network. Nothing in the new book requires you to place the different components in contact with one another nor is there anything that implies you wouldn't follow the normal placement rules. It tells you to use the data sheets and only the ADL has an in contact requirement.

Additional Rules, Fortification networks allows for the Components of a Network to be placed in Base contact(they do not have to be)

Stronghold Assault Fortification networks second Paragraph wrote:When you deploy fortifications on the battlefield, fortifications chosen as part of a Fortification Network can be placed in contact with each other.

So the situation is feasible.

Troa: The Skyshield is not a "Defense Line" so those rules about assaulting through them do not apply

Yeah p.12 under fort networks lets you place them be placed in contact.

Ok, see that now. RAI based on the pictures of setups, I'd say no.

RAW as written your probably can, however you might find yourself becoming a less popular person to play against.

Terrain is placed on the board. On top of a Skyshield is not on the board.

Sure. The rules also allow you to put a Bastion on top of a SSLP on top of a Bastion. They also allow you to but a bastion kit into a blender and glue the dust together to make a .25“ tall Bastion. They allow you to deploy Bastions on their sides to make LoS blocking barriers or upside down so that the enemy can't reach the door.

Everyone knows that the answer to your question is no - including you.

When it comes down to it, RAW trumps all in these cases. As someone else said, it wont make you a favorite but if RAW allows it, you can do it. if it is an unintended loophole, it may be fixed in a FAQ (as the seperated ADL deployment was solved in the FAQ).

The examples you gave IF RAW allowed for them would be hard to put into practice. How many shops have ceilings high enough to allow for a 25 foot tall model on top of the table? The heavy bolters would not be usable as they would not be modeled either. The bastion on it's side would automaticall lose the use of one heavy bolter and the gun on top would have it's range and LOS SEVERELY inhibited and the battlements would be useless as cover.
The one upside down would lose the use of it's top gun, the LOS of the heavy bolters would be much more limited, Your own troops would be unable to enter the building, you would lose use of the battlements altogether and you would be unable to place models n top of it as well. So even if RAW allowed for those, any sane player would not opt for them.

 Mythra wrote:
Fort Network says place in contact w/ other forts so can I put the Bastion on top of the landing pad?

Only if you have a VTOL Bastion. Model some rocket engines and/or a set of rotors off the battlements.

@EVIL

I think that you missed the point. Feasibility is irrelevant and no one cares about practicality - this is an issue of not making a necessary assumption that allows the game to play properly. I understand that you are relying solely on RAW, but this is much less like an ambiguously written sections that people find cheat-ish loopholes in and much more like an unintentional gap that the authors overlooked as they failed to consider that all players did not think reasonably regarding the rules.

Should we find more of these? How about placing models horizontally when it would result in them being out of LoS? The rules that cover movement never establish a vertical requirement. RAW, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the game is not played that way - just like setting up a multi-fortification tower is outside the consideration of the game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
When it comes down to it, RAW trumps all in these cases. As someone else said, it wont make you a favorite but if RAW allows it, you can do it. if it is an unintended loophole, it may be fixed in a FAQ (as the seperated ADL deployment was solved in the FAQ).

The examples you gave IF RAW allowed for them would be hard to put into practice. How many shops have ceilings high enough to allow for a 25 foot tall model on top of the table? The heavy bolters would not be usable as they would not be modeled either. The bastion on it's side would automaticall lose the use of one heavy bolter and the gun on top would have it's range and LOS SEVERELY inhibited and the battlements would be useless as cover.
The one upside down would lose the use of it's top gun, the LOS of the heavy bolters would be much more limited, Your own troops would be unable to enter the building, you would lose use of the battlements altogether and you would be unable to place models n top of it as well. So even if RAW allowed for those, any sane player would not opt for them.

Care to cite the rule in placing terrain that allows you to put a piece of terrain on top of another and not on the board?

The rules never mention 'putting fortifications on the board'.

You _deploy_ them (see page 120, first paragraph).

Normally this is not a problem because you aren't allowed to deploy fortifications within 3" of another (which would prevent you putting one atop another), but in this case you have explicit permission to do so.

I don't think it's really intended though..

This is a matter of you wanting the rulebook to be written one way and GW actually writing it another way. However much you disagree with it or rail about improper writing or loopholes or whatever, it still comes down to RAW. Trust me, I know that the RAW-v-RAI issue comes up a lot. RAW still always trumps RAI.

Edit: Thank you Shandara for citing the rule for me.saved me the trouble of digging out the rulebook.

Please use this forum in the spirit is was intended - doing otherwise may cause you problems moving forward.

Thank you, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

I can understand your problem. There are a lot of instances where the wording of the rules does not allow for the creativity of players when it comes to thinking of ways to work within the wording to come up with cool stuff that will give you an upper hand.
There has been MANY times in tournaments when i just shook my head and played on because of the shenanigans. technically, it is legal so I dont rail against it or argue. I just make a mental note to not play that person outside of the tournament setting.

 Shandara wrote:
The rules never mention 'putting fortifications on the board'.

You _deploy_ them (see page 120, first paragraph).

Normally this is not a problem because you aren't allowed to deploy fortifications within 3" of another (which would prevent you putting one atop another), but in this case you have explicit permission to do so.

I don't think it's really intended though..

Fortifications are terrain.

With their own rules on how they are deployed.

RAW trumps RAI.
Provide the page number and exact quotation tat says a fortification must (the word must is important here) be placed "on the board". again, those words are important. because if you are playing using a battemat or some thing else hat sit on top of the board itself and would prevent physical contact with the actual "wood" of the board your argument would mean that the player could not deploy them for that game at all.

RAW trumps RAI.

When it comes down to it, RAW trumps all in these cases.

I just don't get this attitude at all. Why does RaW trump the rules exactly? If that is your attitude your army better be all unhelmeted humans or you can't draw LoS to anything, your FMCs have the as yet undefined "relentless smash" rule etc etc etc

The rules simply don't work RAW. That doesn't mean RaW is irrelevant but let's not lose sight of the fact RaW is but one method of working out the rules from the Rulebook.