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.

stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

sirlynchmob wrote:
stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

As I am discussing the rules from 40k and not stronghold assault I can't deny that line. However, the idea of stacking of fortifications is quite frankly absurd to begin with and would lead to impossible or unaccounted for issues. That, in itself, does not make a fortification a model (based on the rules definition of model in 40k), but rather makes for a rather typical mess of rules that don't account for things that (probably, and in my opinion only) weren't meant to happen.

*edit : I've read the stacking thread and avoided commenting. It's an absurd scenario that I do not believe is intended, at all.

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

As I am discussing the rules from 40k and not stronghold assault I can't deny that line. However, the idea of stacking of fortifications is quite frankly absurd to begin with and would lead to impossible or unaccounted for issues. That, in itself, does not make a fortification a model (based on the rules definition of model in 40k), but rather makes for a rather typical mess of rules that don't account for things that (probably, and in my opinion only) weren't meant to happen.

*edit : I've read the stacking thread and avoided commenting. It's an absurd scenario that I do not believe is intended, at all.

It's the rules for stronghold assault that started the stacking debate. so when discussing stacking, we're discussing stronghold assault.

pg 12 fortification networks, you can place fortifications in contact with each other.

and you're right without stronghold fortifications must stay 3+" away from each other.

some people who are pro stacking are also in the not a model camp. and that leads to floating fortifications.

I'm against stacking and pro model. which would resolve the floating bastion problem.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

As I am discussing the rules from 40k and not stronghold assault I can't deny that line. However, the idea of stacking of fortifications is quite frankly absurd to begin with and would lead to impossible or unaccounted for issues. That, in itself, does not make a fortification a model (based on the rules definition of model in 40k), but rather makes for a rather typical mess of rules that don't account for things that (probably, and in my opinion only) weren't meant to happen.

*edit : I've read the stacking thread and avoided commenting. It's an absurd scenario that I do not believe is intended, at all.

It's the rules for stronghold assault that started the stacking debate. so when discussing stacking, we're discussing stronghold assault.

pg 12 fortification networks, you can place fortifications in contact with each other.

and you're right without stronghold fortifications must stay 3+" away from each other.

some people who are pro stacking are also in the not a model camp. and that leads to floating fortifications.

I'm against stacking and pro model. which would resolve the floating bastion problem.

The issue there lies in "in contact". The rules for 40K were not written with a vertical in mind. Logically that would lead to "in contact" meaning beside rather than on top of. Anyone using these rules to stack is, most likely, going against the intent. If not, this means that I can stack my infantry on top of your vehicle to be considered "in contact" when assaulting. Obviously that is not what the rules intend.

Being against stacking is enough to resolve the floating bastion problem, regardless of where one stands on fortifications being models or not. Of course, there is still any evidence to support a fortification being a model as the rules of 40k define it (and plenty supporting it not being one), all of which has been stated already.

Rorschach9 wrote:

The issue there lies in "in contact". The rules for 40K were not written with a vertical in mind. Logically that would lead to "in contact" meaning beside rather than on top of. Anyone using these rules to stack is, most likely, going against the intent. If not, this means that I can stack my infantry on top of your vehicle to be considered "in contact" when assaulting. Obviously that is not what the rules intend.

Being against stacking is enough to resolve the floating bastion problem, regardless of where one stands on fortifications being models or not. Of course, there is still any evidence to support a fortification being a model as the rules of 40k define it (and plenty supporting it not being one), all of which has been stated already.

1, I agree, that was my argument

2, I disagree. And those that do agree seem to either house rule it to be one, or admit it's one under the circumstance, so it's really only being functionally different in a few obscure areas.

Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

edit: and where do you stand on placing drop pods on top of a unit?

where do you find these rules for fortification networks? book & page number please

where else do you find a fortification network? book & page number please

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

maybe you should read the thread before you go jumping into the cool aid. You start off with all sorts of incorrect statements, which makes your conclusions questionable.

sirlynchmob wrote:

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

So Monstrous Creatures, Beasts, Jump, Jet Pack, Bike, and Calvary no longer exist?


(Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the troll)

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

Incorrect. All models have a unit type and are not limited to Infantry.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

edit: and where do you stand on placing drop pods on top of a unit?

where do you find these rules for fortification networks? book & page number please

where else do you find a fortification network? book & page number please

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

maybe you should read the thread before you go jumping into the cool aid. You start off with all sorts of incorrect statements, which makes your conclusions questionable.

1) No you can't as you have to DS onto the table, you can however DS onto an unfurled skyshield as per its rules.

2) You can't

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

4) read page 3 under "Other Important Informatiom" first sentence or are you claiming all models are infantry?

5) I have read the thread and not a single statement I made was incorrect. Unless you can point one out.

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

No they don't. Deep striking starts with 'place one model ... on the table'

if 'on the table' means specifically that, then you could never deep strike onto a skyshield, nor battlements, nor aim drop pods on top of units. See you can't even find a concrete definition for 'on the table', nor stick to your own definition of it, yet you think 'model' has one.

so where are these rules for fortification networks? I see you forgot to include them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

edit: and where do you stand on placing drop pods on top of a unit?

where do you find these rules for fortification networks? book & page number please

where else do you find a fortification network? book & page number please

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

maybe you should read the thread before you go jumping into the cool aid. You start off with all sorts of incorrect statements, which makes your conclusions questionable.

1) No you can't as you have to DS onto the table, you can however DS onto an unfurled skyshield as per its rules.

2) You can't

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

4) read page 3 under "Other Important Informatiom" first sentence or are you claiming all models are infantry?

5) I have read the thread and not a single statement I made was incorrect. Unless you can point one out.

have you read it, you're the one claiming

Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

and

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

incorrect. you claim they can touch without stronghold assault, then cite stronghold assault as it's source.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

No they don't. Deep striking starts with 'place one model ... on the table'

if 'on the table' means specifically that, then you could never deep strike onto a skyshield, nor battlements, nor aim drop pods on top of units. See you can't even find a concrete definition for 'on the table', nor stick to your own definition of it, yet you think 'model' has one.

DS rules are general, the skyshield rules are specific and include the ability to DS on top. As for DS'ing onto battlements, I do believe one of the FAQ's mentioned that, however as they're not currently available I can't look them up to verify.
On the table = On the table, and I do stick to that definition throughout. However, when you are given explicit permission to override that, there is no issue with the rules. You can end the false arguments and strawman tactics now, kthnx.

so where are these rules for fortification networks? I see you forgot to include them.

I never discussed them, so I had no reason to discuss it. You do, however, seem to be misconstruing what was being said about them. You can select a fortification network (From SHA) without using the (and it's bolded and underlined above) OPTIONAL rules.

Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

There it is. Thank you for proving me correct.

Of course, in addition to that right in the DS rules it tells you that you can DS into Ruins (on the ground floor) and to treat non-ruined buildings (*** EXCEPT BATTLEMENTS) as impassible terrain. Why "Except battlements" if not to say you can DS onto battlements?
Explicit permission given. No rules broken. Straw Man toppled?

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

There it is. Thank you for proving me correct.

Of course, in addition to that right in the DS rules it tells you that you can DS into Ruins (on the ground floor) and to treat non-ruined buildings (*** EXCEPT BATTLEMENTS) as impassible terrain. Why "Except battlements" if not to say you can DS onto battlements?
Explicit permission given. No rules broken. Straw Man toppled?

ask fling it now, he's the one claiming onto the battlements is not on the table.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

There it is. Thank you for proving me correct.

Of course, in addition to that right in the DS rules it tells you that you can DS into Ruins (on the ground floor) and to treat non-ruined buildings (*** EXCEPT BATTLEMENTS) as impassible terrain. Why "Except battlements" if not to say you can DS onto battlements?
Explicit permission given. No rules broken. Straw Man toppled?

ask fling it now, he's the one claiming onto the battlements is not on the table.

Well then your arguments are meandering all over the place;

sirlynchmob wrote:


No they don't. Deep striking starts with 'place one model ... on the table'
if 'on the table' means specifically that, then you could never deep strike onto a skyshield, nor battlements, nor aim drop pods on top of units. See you can't even find a concrete definition for 'on the table', nor stick to your own definition of it, yet you think 'model' has one.

It's no wonder there is no clear discussion going on..

the only rule is "place a model on the table" which is really vague with no defined meaning. There is no specific rule saying you can deep strike onto battlements, nor onto the skyshield.

the faq says you can DS onto a battlement. FAQ's are not rules, nor do they explain the reasoning behind why they get ruled that way. and they're down right now.

the clear discussion was done on the second post, then the "not a model" crowed showed up and keep bringing up ridiculous red herrings and strawmen

so

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

is wrong, the rules for battlements and the rules for the skyshield do not give explicit permission to do so. it is derived from a FAQ, and a vague statement of 'on the table'

have you read it, you're the one claiming

Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

and 

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

incorrect. you claim they can touch without stronghold assault, then cite stronghold assault as it's source.

Oh dear did you really just post that. You clearly haven't read SHA and yet trying to use it as the lynch pin of your bizarre strawman. Do you want to concede now please?

 FlingitNow wrote:

have you read it, you're the one claiming

Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

and 

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

incorrect. you claim they can touch without stronghold assault, then cite stronghold assault as it's source.

Oh dear did you really just post that. You clearly haven't read SHA and yet trying to use it as the lynch pin of your bizarre strawman. Do you want to concede now please?

please explain how you use the rules for strong hold assault while not using them?

If you're using fortification networks, you're using the stronghold assault rules.

Clearly your definition of "on the table" is demonstrable wrong, and strong hold assault has nothing to do with it. so please post something coherent or concede.

please explain how you use the rules for strong hold assault while not using them?

I suggest you read SHA it is clearly explained there.

Clearly your definition of "on the table" is demonstrable wrong, and strong hold assault has nothing to do with it. so please post something coherent or concede. 

Given that we both know you don't have a clue what Strong Hold Assault says or you'd have know what I was talking about. I don't think you should be trying to use that as the lynch pin of your strawman. If my definition of "on the table" is demonstrably wrong please demonstrate it. Yes I forgot the top of a Bastion was battlements which again have their own rules for DSing onto them. That again doesn't prove anything. Plus if you can't see that placing a Bastion on top of another is at best absolute rules abuse being surprised that that results in weird situations when coupled with some optional rules is frankly bizarre.