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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I agree with you strictly RAW that we arent given permission to change terrain after the game starts, but I also feel that RAI you can in the case of the skyshield.

Its extremely obvious honestly.

It is really not that obvious.

Nothing in the Shielded or Unfurled configuration tell you to move the walls on the terrain piece (Indeed sometimes this is not even possible because the parts have been glued in place).

I am surprised that people think they should move the terrain after it has been placed.

The game rules are abstract. They have to be otherwise the Skyshield would need a ramp so that tanks that Deep Strike onto it can get down off of it. But it does not have a ramp and you just move on and off with a DT test. thus the abstract nature of the ruleset.

Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down, thus giving models on the shield cover and granting a no scatter deepstrike?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.

Why wouldn't the wall be up?

Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?

From the BRB, "At the beginning of the Movement phase, before rolling for reserves,
a model in base contact with a Skyshield Landing Pad can change
its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa). If there
are models from both sides in base contact with the landing pad, its
configuration cannot be changed."

Permission to change the model at the beginning of the movement phase.

No, that is not permission to change the terrain (It is not a model BTW).

That gives permission to use the Unfurled or Shielded configuration rules.

It does not say that you can physically manipulate and move parts of the terrain feature in question.

I don't see where that line states "unfurled or shielded configuration rules". Merely that you change the configuration. So please tell me what the meaning of "configuration" is, if not the dictionary definition of configuration?

If you take it to mean only the rules that are being used for the rules that specific turn are different, that is certainly one valid interpretation (despite the rules not actually saying that). The more likely interpretation is that you physically change the Skyshield (yes, very well, I concede that it is not a "model" in game rules terms) to have the flaps up or down based on the rule you wish to use that turn.

Am I wrong? Are you wrong? I would have to say no to both. However, I would also argue HIWPI (and likely as intended) you change the physical configuration.

FAQ says battlements provide 4+ cover.

Inside a fortification. Like inside the bunker, or bastion. 3+

Johnnytorrance wrote:
FAQ says battlements provide 4+ cover.

Inside a fortification. Like inside the bunker, or bastion. 3+

The skyshield is neither of those however.

 Nilok wrote:
Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down

No, where did this idea come from?

thus giving models on the shield cover and granting a no scatter deepstrike?

That is what would happen if the walls were up when the terrain piece was placed on the table, as nothing tells you to move the terrain piece mid game. Basically I am saying that if the walls are up, you leave them up as nothing tells you to change the terrain feature mid game.

Shielded and Unfurled configuration have specific rules, and neither of these tell you to change the terrain feature that is the Skyshield.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The main reason i believe you should be able to move the wings up and down is because of balance acctually.[Sic]

If you are deepstriking somthing[Sic] down with no scatter, you shouldnt[Sic] also recieve[Sic] the invunerable[Sic] or cover save. Its supposed to be a choice, one or the other, that a player has to make depending on the situation.

If you can leave the wings up, deepstrike with no scatter, and still get your saves, there is no negative with which to choose from.

If you deep strike onto the Skyshield and it is in Unfurled configuration then you are not getting a invulnerable save as you use the rules for the Unfurled configuration, as it has to be in Shielded configuration for it to grant an invulnerable save.

Rorschach9 wrote:
I don't see where that line states "unfurled or shielded configuration rules". Merely that you change the configuration. So please tell me what the meaning of "configuration" is, if not the dictionary definition of configuration?

BRB Page 115.

"A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled, as described below." (115)

Shielded configuration and Unfurled configuration are the two configurations that the Skyshield has rules for, and you can change this configuration from Shielded to Unfurled and back again. Nothing in the rules for changing the configuration tell you to move the terrain piece.

If you take it to mean only the rules that are being used for the rules that specific turn are different, that is certainly one valid interpretation (despite the rules not actually saying that).

The more likely interpretation is that you physically change the Skyshield (yes, very well, I concede that it is not a "model" in game rules terms) to have the flaps up or down based on the rule you wish to use that turn.

Am I wrong? Are you wrong? I would have to say no to both. However, I would also argue HIWPI (and likely as intended) you change the physical configuration.

Except nothing in the actual rules allows you to move the terrain piece.

JohnnyTorrance:
How are you allocating wounds to the units inside a building based fortification?

The only method I know of is to allocate a wound to the unit embarked inside a building, via a successful Glance or Penetration against the fortification itself, and all those wounds are 'ignore cover' so it is moot....

JinxDragon wrote:
JohnnyTorrance:
How are you allocating wounds to the units inside a building based fortification?

The only method I know of is to allocate a wound to the unit embarked inside a building, via a successful Glance or Penetration against the fortification itself, and all those wounds are 'ignore cover' so it is moot....

Grenades thrown into a fire point cause wounds and you can get a cover save from those, as they do not have the ignores cover special rule. (Page 94 has more info)

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
I don't see where that line states "unfurled or shielded configuration rules". Merely that you change the configuration. So please tell me what the meaning of "configuration" is, if not the dictionary definition of configuration?

BRB Page 115.

"A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled, as described below." (115)

Shielded configuration and Unfurled configuration are the two configurations that the Skyshield has rules for, and you can change this configuration from Shielded to Unfurled and back again. Nothing in the rules for changing the configuration tell you to move the terrain piece.

If you take it to mean only the rules that are being used for the rules that specific turn are different, that is certainly one valid interpretation (despite the rules not actually saying that).

The more likely interpretation is that you physically change the Skyshield (yes, very well, I concede that it is not a "model" in game rules terms) to have the flaps up or down based on the rule you wish to use that turn.

Am I wrong? Are you wrong? I would have to say no to both. However, I would also argue HIWPI (and likely as intended) you change the physical configuration.

Except nothing in the actual rules allows you to move the terrain piece.

Agree to disagree then. I still contend that the Skyshield Landing Pad "has certain rules depending on it's configuration" explicitly refers to it's configuration (as per the English definition of the word) and not simply the rule you are currently running it with.

DeathReaper,
Will take a closer look at that page, curious about one or two possible 'breaks' that could occur depending on the terminology used.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Agree to disagree then. I still contend that the Skyshield Landing Pad "has certain rules depending on it's configuration" explicitly refers to it's configuration (as per the English definition of the word) and not simply the rule you are currently running it with.

Except the Rules specifically state what happens when "A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled , as described below." (115, Emphasis Mine)

"A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration" explicitly refers to "shielded or unfurled"

"a model in base contact with a Skyshield landing Pad can change its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa)." (115)

A model can change the Skyshield landing Pad's configuration. The rules Describe what shielded and unfurled entail, and it does not mention the players moving parts of the terrain piece...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down

No, where did this idea come from?

Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.

 Nilok wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down

No, where did this idea come from?

Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.

It has nothing to do with dropping the shields. The rules do not tell you to move the terrain after the terrain has been placed.

You should not claim that the walls are down. Indeed the rules do not mention the walls being up or down at all on the terrain feature.

There is just no allowance to move the terrain.

You don't think "unfurled" means that the walls can be lowered, given that the walls are movable on the model ?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down

No, where did this idea come from?

Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.

I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.

In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares, rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Agree to disagree then. I still contend that the Skyshield Landing Pad "has certain rules depending on it's configuration" explicitly refers to it's configuration (as per the English definition of the word) and not simply the rule you are currently running it with.

Except the Rules specifically state what happens when "A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled , as described below." (115, Emphasis Mine)

"A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration" explicitly refers to "shielded or unfurled"

"a model in base contact with a Skyshield landing Pad can change its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa)." (115)

A model can change the Skyshield landing Pad's configuration. The rules Describe what shielded and unfurled entail, and it does not mention the players moving parts of the terrain piece...

Except it can just as easily be read as "A skyshield landing pad has certain rules depending on it's current configuration", and these rules are, "Shielded or unfurled, as described below." See how easy it is to be read both ways?

Configuration (by definition) explicitly refers to the physical shape of the landing pad itself.
Like I said, agree to disagree on the reading of this. Running the same argument repeatedly does not change that.

 Formosa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down

No, where did this idea come from?

Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.

I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.

In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares, rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.

Quote Edited by Formosa

I wouldn't (not)DeathReaper, however, it is always a good idea for proof reading a rule or argument to see how it works from another perspective.

Who can still find their assembly instructions that came with the skyshield? Didn't that have something in there about the configurations in it?

 Nilok wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down

No, where did this idea come from?

Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.

I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.

In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares, rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.

Quote Edited by Formosa

I wouldn't (not)DeathReaper, however, it is always a good idea for proof reading a rule or argument to see how it works from another perspective.

Fair enough, I can understand that at least

The landing pad model is designed so it's sides can be moved between it's two configurations(up/down), and the rules are such that you can change between the two during the game. So what's the problem then with moving them?

ted1138 wrote:
The landing pad model is designed so it's sides can be moved between it's two configurations(up/down), and the rules are such that you can change between the two during the game. So what's the problem then with moving them?

The rules do not give specific permission to change how the model is on the table. Do I think most people would have a problem with the flaps being up or down based on the current configuration? No. As a side note I would play it as a 5+ cover save, since it is not a fortification, nor is it a ruins or defense line.

I am not so convinced of that HappyJew, unless they Frequently Asked Questioned it or something?

The terrain piece in question is found in the section titled 'fortifications,' it is presented with the same datasheet that we are informed fortifications use, it also required to be a fortification in order to fill the fortification slot and it's points value is even listed as 'fortification cost.' While it lacks any tag stating it is a (fortification) or something similar, the most hold up examples of fortifications also lack any tags informing us outright that they are fortifications. Even the Boston, the center-piece of human fortifications in the 40th millennium, only have a terrain type of Medium Building. It seems the only way we know that any building is a legal fortification is if it is found in this section of the book, or has a data sheet using the 'fortification format' and informing us that these also count as fortifications.

Everything points to this thing being a fortification, an unusual and very poorly Rule supported fortification but still a fortification.

IF the skyshield meets the requirement for fortification, then so does the aegis defense line so that too should give a 3+ cover

Except the Aegis Defense Line has Specific Rules designed for just it, rules which inform us that the cover save is different to a standard fortification.

For a thought exercise, lets say the Aegis Defense Line does not have Specific Rules devoted to it in the Battle Debris section of the book:
What is it's cover save?

JinxDragon wrote:
Except the Aegis Defense Line has Specific Rules designed for just it, rules which inform us that the cover save is different to a standard fortification.

None of those rule prevent it from giving other cover saves. If simply being in the fortification slot of the FOC qualifies as being a fortification for cover purposes, the the ADL would give both a 4+ for being a Wall and then a 3+ also for being a fortification (and then you use the best save given)

Interesting side point but that raises a question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?

Page and Paragraph for rule support please.

JinxDragon wrote:
Except the Aegis Defense Line has Specific Rules designed for just it, rules which inform us that the cover save is different to a standard fortification.

For a thought exercise, lets say the Aegis Defense Line does not have Specific Rules devoted to it in the Battle Debris section of the book:
What is it's cover save?

I'm guessing you are asking what it would be if it did not say "Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line)"?

In that case we would look to the chart on page 18 - Since it does not seem to fit anything listed, we look just above the Cover Chart which directs us to Battlefield Terrain. Moving forward from there, we eventually come across "Battlefield Debris" where there are a couple different things it could fall under - Barricades and Walls, or Defence Lines.

ted1138 wrote:
The landing pad model is designed so it's sides can be moved between it's two configurations(up/down), and the rules are such that you can change between the two during the game. So what's the problem then with moving them?

Because there are no rules that allow you to move the terrain piece mid game. They allow you to change the configuration and there are rules telling you exactly what that entails, and none of those rules give you the allowance to move the terrain mid game.

The same as if you moved a building just before your opponents shooting phase so the enemy would not have line of sight to your models in the open.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Except it can just as easily be read as "A skyshield landing pad has certain rules depending on it's current configuration", and these rules are, "Shielded or unfurled, as described below." See how easy it is to be read both ways?

No I do not see how easy it is to be read both ways since they explicitly describe shielded and unfurled in the rules, none of which tells the player to move the terrain piece...

Rorschach9 wrote:
Configuration (by definition) explicitly refers to the physical shape of the landing pad itself.

Not by the 40K definition as they explicitly describe the two configurations rules on page 115.

 Formosa wrote:
I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.

Following the rules is ridiculous now?

In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares

So you would be okay with me moving other pieces of terrain to give my guys a cover save when your shooting phase comes around and then move that terrain out of the way when it comes to my shooting phase, after all "there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the [terrain] but who cares" right?

P.S. the Skyshield is terrain and not a model.

rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.

Rule #1? What do you mean?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
You don't think "unfurled" means that the walls can be lowered, given that the walls are movable on the model ?

Unfurled means exactly this: "Unfurled: If a unit deep strikes on top of an unfurled Skyshleld Landing Pad, it will never scatter. Jump units, Jet Pack units, Jetbikes and Skimmers do not need to take Dangerous Terrain tests for moving on to or off of an unfurled skyshield Landing Pad." (115)

That is the extent of the "Unfurled" rules for the Skyshield.

There is notihng in those rules that include changing the terrain piece.

Happyjew,
I was stating there was no defense line debris entry, period, how then would we calculate the cover save without rule telling us how to do so?
Do we default back to the standard fortification save in that situation?
Do we move onto different debris entries to find what best fits?

Should you be willing to then default to the Wall entry, on the grounds it looks most like a wall, then a follow up question is raised:
What prevents the wall like protrusions of any terrain piece from being treated as walls, if there is no express rule telling us how to calculate that cover save for that individual piece of terrain?

Though given how they Frequently Asked Questioned battlements to act just like walls and nothing more then walls, pre-Stronghold assault, the mentality of 'if it looks like a wall, it is a wall' is probably the Writers Intent.

JinxDragon wrote:
Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?

Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.

If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?

Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.

If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.

Except for the advanced vs basic rules on page 7

Since the advanced rule gives the ADL a 4+ cover save, it overrides the fortification 3+ cover save, since the rules contradict.