Switch Theme:

Sky Shield Landing Pad question  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.

Not the other way around...

Rules have been quoted - a single piece of terrain has been given 2 save values and neither is restricted to being the only save value allowed.

Cite rules support please.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 CrownAxe wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.

Not the other way around...

I have two rules saying what cover ADL provides (its terrain description and being a fortification) that's my permission. [No, that is a contradiction]

You need an exception to change that. [Considering it is a contradiction and not permission, it does not need to be changed]


Added the red text.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

SirLynchMob,
For Rule Debates, the golden rule is not a good answer. Everyone should already know an opponent and themselves can adjust the rules at their own leisure and it would mean ending every question here with 'talk to your opponent and sort it out.' For the purpose of Rule Debate we need quotable rules, which is why we normally consider the default Rules even though we do have a sentence stating the Defaults can he changed by the players. After all, I doubt I would be treated kindly if I went around saying Battlements give a 2+ cover save simply because me and my friend play each other... making it Rule as Written supported!

Personally:
Just going to file this under 'writers screwed up' because it is clear we do not have rules to inform us what is and is not a fortification.


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Auspicious Daemonic Herald





 DeathReaper wrote:
 CrownAxe wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.

Not the other way around...

I have two rules saying what cover ADL provides (its terrain description and being a fortification) that's my permission. [No, that is a contradiction]

You need an exception to change that. [Considering it is a contradiction and not permission, it does not need to be changed]


Added the red text.

I told you before its not a contradiction
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
SirLynchMob,
For Rule Debates, the golden rule is not a good answer. Everyone should already know an opponent and themselves can adjust the rules at their own leisure and it would mean ending every question here with 'talk to your opponent and sort it out.' For the purpose of Rule Debate we need quotable rules, which is why we normally consider the default Rules even though we do have a sentence stating the Defaults can he changed by the players. After all, I doubt I would be treated kindly if I went around saying Battlements give a 2+ cover save simply because me and my friend play each other... making it Rule as Written supported!

Personally:
Just going to file this under 'writers screwed up' because it is clear we do not have rules to inform us what is and is not a fortification.


pg 91 is a reiteration of the golden rule for terrain. It's like they knew the rules were horrid so they put in these two rules and said "figure it for yourself, it doesn't make sense to us either"

I agree though, that's why I jumped on getting stronghold assault. I hoped for clearer rules and they helped clarify a few minor things while creating a bigger mess of rules.

But break out the popcorn and we'll see if DR, Crownaxe and Riegeld can work out RAW

 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 CrownAxe wrote:
I told you before its not a contradiction

And, as I have shown, your statements are incorrect.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Daemonic Herald





 DeathReaper wrote:
 CrownAxe wrote:
I told you before its not a contradiction

And, as I have shown, your statements are incorrect.

No I've shown you that you are incorrect
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 CrownAxe wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 CrownAxe wrote:
I told you before its not a contradiction

And, as I have shown, your statements are incorrect.

No I've shown you that you are incorrect

One rule says the ADL gives a 3+ cover save. One rule says that the ADL gives a 4+ cover save.

These are directly contradictory as you have two save values for the ADL.

The more advanced rule over rides the basic rule as per Page 7.

You have not shown how page 7 is incorrect.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




No, a contradictory rule ould be one that is more specific. "this gives a 4+ save instead of a 3+" would be the approximate wording that would let page 7 kick in.

You have been given 2 saves, and no rule stating one overwrites the other. Welll, not one you have provided.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DeathReaper wrote:
 CrownAxe wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 CrownAxe wrote:
I told you before its not a contradiction

And, as I have shown, your statements are incorrect.

No I've shown you that you are incorrect

One rule says the ADL gives a 3+ cover save. One rule says that the ADL gives a 4+ cover save.

These are directly contradictory as you have two save values for the ADL.

The more advanced rule over rides the basic rule as per Page 7.

You have not shown how page 7 is incorrect.

Please cite a rule stating that terrain can only provide one cover save. You're asserting one exists - prove it.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

rigeld2 wrote:
Please cite a rule stating that terrain can only provide one cover save. You're asserting one exists - prove it.

You have that backwards.

It is a permissivve ruleset.

you have to show the rule that allows an ADL to provide multiple cover saves instead of just one.

Prove it.

"For example, a soft obstacle (like a bloodthorn hedge) that would hide soldiers behind it, but would not even slow down enemy shots, confers a 5+ cover save. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save" (18) Although this shows that a single piece of terrain only confers a single cover save.

"Before deploying their armies, it is a very good idea for players to go through all the terrain pieces on the battlefield quickly and agree what kind of cover each will offer." (18) also does not say that multiples are possible.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.

No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.

No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.

It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.

Please explain this discrepancy.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

rigeld2 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.

No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.

It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.

Please explain this discrepancy.

Models are not terrain.


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.

No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.

It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.

Please explain this discrepancy.

Models are not terrain.

Relevancy?
You've asserted that rules that grant a save are contradictory and there must be permission to grant multiple.
Cite the rule that allows it for invulnerable saves or admit that the arguments contradict each other.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.

No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.

It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.

Please explain this discrepancy.

Models are not terrain.


Dr, just stop there. You've cited an entirely irrelevant distinction as support. Please concede, as you have shown out you are inconsistent in the ruling here
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

nosferatu1001 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.

No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.

It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.

Please explain this discrepancy.

Models are not terrain.


Dr, just stop there. You've cited an entirely irrelevant distinction as support. Please concede, as you have shown out you are inconsistent in the ruling here

I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 18:31:11


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DeathReaper wrote:
I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.

In this situation they are comparable. Directly.
Cite rules support for your position please.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

rigeld2 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.

In this situation they are comparable. Directly.
Cite rules support for your position please.

They are not comparable. Models are not terrain features.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




In the respect that they can grant dover saves they are.

Again, rules support for why when granted two saves you replace. Page and para stating exactly that, or concede
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.

In this situation they are comparable. Directly.
Cite rules support for your position please.

They are not comparable. Models are not terrain features.

Correct. How is that relevant to how saves are granted? Again, cite some rules please. So far you're stating facts and declining to provide rules support.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Without actual rule support, we call those opinions... or wishful thinking...

   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.


Ok missed that reply, and to reply myself, "following the rules is ridiculous how?"

Simple answer, it's not, but what your doing is, it's called abusing the rules or being pedantic and overly picky where and when it's not wanted or required, no one cares that there is no "specific rule" that allows you to adjust the model throughout the game, because a vast majority of people are not tourney waac gamers who are afraid such a thing might cost them the game, sadly that's where I see most of these rules abuses and exploits come from :(

All the childish arguing aside above, who actually would dare to play it this way? Or be seen and this pedantic?
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

I actually play that you can not move the terrain mid game, as there is no allowance to move the terrain mid game.

It is following the rules, and that is what we are supposed to do.

The BRB explicitly describes the Shielded and Unfurled rules, none of which tells the player to move the terrain piece...

Following the rules is not ridiculous...

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.

Not changing the wall configuration to follow the active rule on a model designed to do so, will also lead to confusion on which state it is currently in unless you use some sort of marking or visual representation.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Nilok wrote:
I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.

Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





 DeathReaper wrote:
 Nilok wrote:
I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.

Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.

Unfortunately, since we can't agree on the definition on "change its configuration," I am simply saying how I would play it since arguing our opinion of the definition would just waste people's time.
I also recommend playing by altering the model accordingly since otherwise it may cause problems as I stated above where the players could lose track of the current state of the Skyshield, and LoS would be different than expected and could be viewed as attempting to game your opponent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/19 06:52:49


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Nilok wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Nilok wrote:
I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.

Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.

Unfortunately, since we can't agree on the definition on "change its configuration,"
Because you refuse to read the rules I have posted?

Do you agree that there are rules for Shielded and different rules for Unfurled?

Do you also agree that the RAW does not allow you to alter the terrain after the game starts?

If not please give a citation.

I am simply saying how I would play it since arguing our opinion of the definition would just waste people's time.
I also recommend playing by altering the model accordingly since otherwise it may cause problems as I stated above where the players could lose track of the current state of the Skyshield, and LoS would be different than expected and could be viewed as attempting to game your opponent.
Weird, why not play by the rules instead of changing them?

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 DeathReaper wrote:
 Nilok wrote:
I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.

Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.


Wait you want him to cite a rule to back up what he thinks is RAI?

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: