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.

"There are rules for blast that require you declare a level [of a ruin] that is targeted "

Fixed that for you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"There are rules for blast that require you declare a level [of a ruin] that is targeted "

Fixed that for you.

Ok, for those that didn't know that I was talking about a targeting levels of a ruin. Of which, you are obviously not one. Good of you to ignore the remainder of my post to express that you understood what I was talking about. I expect that you'll be addressing the remainder once you've run it through google translator.

 Idolator wrote:

According to rules written, If you are playing it as having two levels, ...

Which you wouldn't be doing by the rules as written, since the rules don't list it as a ruin.

Treating the skyshield as a ruin is a fairly common houserule that write nicely fixes most of the issues with it...but is not RAW.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

According to rules written, If you are playing it as having two levels, ...

Which you wouldn't be doing by the rules as written, since the rules don't list it as a ruin.

Treating the skyshield as a ruin is a fairly common houserule that write nicely fixes most of the issues with it...but is not RAW.

Seriously that was way out of context.

If you're not playing as having two levels then you would never have anyone under it, case solved.

If you are, then you run into all those issues that I listed as no part of it can be considered as any other type of terrain.

Honestly though, the terrain type is listed as unique. The rules for unique state that the two examples presented are "merely the beginning of your possibilities, not the end!" So you pretty much have carte blanche to play it any way that you want and still be within the rules as written.

Edit: I know that's a tough concept for some people, but in this case especially, that's the way that it is.

 Idolator wrote:

If you're not playing as having two levels then you would never have anyone under it, case solved.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. You don't normally apply the rules for multiple levels from the ruin section to the skyshield, because it is not a ruin.

That doesn't mean that you ignore the fact that the platform is raised off the ground. It simply means that the rules for how to resolve certain in game situations that apply specifically to ruins don't apply to the skyshield, because it isn't a ruin.

Edit: I know that's a tough concept for some people, ...

Snide little asides like this add nothing constructive to the discussion.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you're not playing as having two levels then you would never have anyone under it, case solved.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. You don't normally apply the rules for multiple levels from the ruin section to the skyshield, because it is not a ruin.

That doesn't mean that you ignore the fact that the platform is raised off the ground. It simply means that the rules for how to resolve certain in game situations that apply specifically to ruins don't apply to the skyshield, because it isn't a ruin.

Edit: I know that's a tough concept for some people, ...

Snide little asides like this add nothing constructive to the discussion.

Exactly, you do play it as having two levels. And all of those issues that I mentioned come into play. The things holding it up aren't walls, the top floor provides no cover, etc.

BTW, that was not a snide comment. Isolating it from the rest of the sentence (for no reason) makes it look a little fishy, but no less true. The rules for unique terrain literally spell out that they are not hard and fast rules. Merely a starting point. Some people have difficulty with this either as a concept or as an application, but there it is written into the rules, making it both RAW and RAI.

When I'm being snide it's unmistakable. Just as old DR's was at the top of this page.

 Idolator wrote:
The rules for unique terrain literally spell out that they are not hard and fast rules. Merely a starting point.

Yes, they do... but they're talking about terrain pieces that you make up for yourself to have their own unique rules. The paragraph at the end of the unique terrain section explains that unique terrain that has a datasheet has all the information you need on that datasheet.

So the Skyshield being unique doesn't mean that players should make up their own rules for it. It already has rules. They're just not very good.

Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

It really doesnt. It takes about 5 minutes max at the start of the game to clarify what the SS has in terms of terrain rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

That is stupid "advice".
10000's of people around the world manage to play the game with out any sort of confusion at all by sorting it out amongst themselves.
It is you who should be taking a leaf out of their book.

Fragile wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

It really doesnt. It takes about 5 minutes max at the start of the game to clarify what the SS has in terms of terrain rules.

I was specifically talking of beginners / casuals here. We are quite different as a lot of us frequently visit YMDC and already had a look at those discussions. Someone who just plays the game to play it and isn't as rules-savvy as we are simply won't know the RAW way to handle this. The official and correct way to play this out is extremely counter-intuitive as it defies common sense. Average players certainly will not think about what happens if a Template Weapon hits units under a Skyshield. For most people units below won't get hit. I sincerely doubt that most people think "Oooooh, look, here's the rule for template weapons...yeah, it hits them although being under the shield!". They "cross the bridge when they get to it" and then, hopefully, have a look on the internet and find the info they were searching for.

I think the point is most people are happy to play the game they wish and that is fun, granted in dire peril of not playing it "the official way".

I might add that the forums of Dakka are not the custodians of the "official way" either.
"The Official Way" to resolve things is laid out quite clearly in the rulebook and in summary it says "work it out with your opponent" and doesn't make mention of the Internet.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The rules for unique terrain literally spell out that they are not hard and fast rules. Merely a starting point.

Yes, they do... but they're talking about terrain pieces that you make up for yourself to have their own unique rules. The paragraph at the end of the unique terrain section explains that unique terrain that has a datasheet has all the information you need on that datasheet.

So the Skyshield being unique doesn't mean that players should make up their own rules for it. It already has rules. They're just not very good.

I disagree. The rules for unique terrain are to be taken as a whole and the rules for changing/adding/building your own terrain apply to all unique terrain both those that you make yourself and those that have data sheets. Earlier in the book it tells us that the rules are to be taken in context.

The fact that there are no rules for placing a vehicle on a sky shield, no determination on how to treat the different levels, no rules for how to treat the support stanchions, no rules for firing at nor rules that disallow firing at the structure, etc.etc. etc. proves that it doesn't have all that you need to play it. It merely has the unique rules attributed to it.

Leaving us with a conundrum. We either use the rules for unique terrain and fill in the blanks ourselves (which everyone does) or you use the rules for unique terrain and play with something that has poorly written and incomplete rules. Both follow the rules for unique terrain and allows the players to play the terrain piece the way that they like. Both types of play are following the RAW.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Idolator: I am under the impression that you confuse RAW and RAI...or common sense. RAI and common sense would of course not allow you to hit models under the Skyshield with a blast marker. RAW, which means if you go 100% by the book and leave logic aside, you may do so however.

The Skyshield is not played as a two-level ruin! It's a piece of terrain with 2 levels. That sounds stupid to make a difference in between, but it's very important to make that distinction as the former would be a rules-related issue whereas the latter is something that does not require any rules. Another example would be a bridge on the battlefield. It basically got two levels, but isn't a two-level ruin as defined in the rules.

Again: do not play with the Skyshield. It is huge, causes major balance issues and requires a lot of RAW-knowledge for unexperienced players.

No, I understand RAW and RAI. The rules clearly tell you that unique terrain and how you play it is entirely up to the players. Meaning that however you decide to play it is following both the direct RULES AS WRITTEN as well as RULES AS INTENDED. Since they spell out that they intend for unique terrain to be played however you want.

Terrain is highly subjective in the first place and one of the fuzziest aspects of the game. Unique terrain and how to play it is entirely up to the players themselves. Those data sheets contain only the unique rules attributed to the unique feature. Otherwise they would have large entries as buildings, forests and water features do.

 Idolator wrote:
No, I understand RAW and RAI. The rules clearly tell you that unique terrain and how you play it is entirely up to the players. Meaning that however you decide to play it is following both the direct RULES AS WRITTEN as well as RULES AS INTENDED. Since they spell out that they intend for unique terrain to be played however you want.

Terrain is highly subjective in the first place and one of the fuzziest aspects of the game. Unique terrain and how to play it is entirely up to the players themselves. Those data sheets contain only the unique rules attributed to the unique feature. Otherwise they would have large entries as buildings, forests and water features do.

(Emphasis mine)

Page 114 disagrees with the underlined statement. " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games." (Emphasis mine 114)

The datasheet contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games, not some of the info, all the info. How you play it is clearly not entirely up to the players, as my rules quote has proven.

I can't seems to find the rules for when units are stacked on top of each other but are not in ruins. I can only guess that this interaction was not foreseen by the rules writers and was omitted.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
No, I understand RAW and RAI. The rules clearly tell you that unique terrain and how you play it is entirely up to the players. Meaning that however you decide to play it is following both the direct RULES AS WRITTEN as well as RULES AS INTENDED. Since they spell out that they intend for unique terrain to be played however you want.

Terrain is highly subjective in the first place and one of the fuzziest aspects of the game. Unique terrain and how to play it is entirely up to the players themselves. Those data sheets contain only the unique rules attributed to the unique feature. Otherwise they would have large entries as buildings, forests and water features do.

(Emphasis mine)

Page 114 disagrees with the underlined statement. " All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games." (Emphasis mine 114)

The datasheet contains all the information you'll need to use them in your games, not some of the info, all the info. How you play it is clearly not entirely up to the players, as my rules quote has proven.

Except for the fact that it obviously doesn't contain all the rules needed to play. That puts a little bit of a hitch in your reasoning. Is it a mistake, was it intentional, who knows? It doesn't change the fact that they aren't there and that eventuality is covered under the rules for unique terrain.

I already rattled off several of the rules that aren't covered that are essential to play. The most glaring and relative to this discussion would be the rules for units underneath the darned thing and rules for shooting at the structure itself. Bottom line: those rules are incomplete as they only contain the unique aspects of the terrain piece. Claiming that those unique rules are the only rules allowed would make the thing unplayable in the extreme.

Your stance causes more issues than it fixes.

Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

What other rules effect it?????? Are you referring to rules not contained on the data sheet? Hmmmm....

I recall someone stating that all the rules to play were on the data sheet. I'll remember who in a minute....I'll have to get back to you. It's right at the tips of my fingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I found it. It was this guy.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play.

I'm not sure that this is reliable though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because he wrote this house rule as fact. In order to support his position. To paper over the lack of rules allowing a tank to move onto a second level with no visible means to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It is actually a retractable ramp that is built into the Skyshield.

This is not a feature present on the miniature though.

If it's not present on the model, it doesn't exist. The data sheet clearly say access points:as per model.

Edit: In fact, there are no rules written in the book that allow a vehicle to move to an upper level.

Idolator,
Do you honestly expect Game Workshop to print the entire Rule Book on each data sheet, even the basics, just to be true to the word 'all' within that sentence?

While the Rules for the Skyshield are very... very... very... ve.... you get the idea... poorly written, the Authors did state that the datasheet will include the Rules needed to use this terrain piece within the game. It is far more reasonable to conclude that the Authors where talking about any Rule that might conflict with one found in the Rule Book, or be required to give it additional permission to do X or Y. All the basic rules would still be followed concerning these pieces unless otherwise noted.

Now if only they took this datasheet back to the drawing board, and the terrain piece that represents it at that....

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
Do you honestly expect Game Workshop to print the entire Rule Book on each data sheet, even the basics, just to be true to the word 'all' within that sentence?

No. That's my point. It doesn't contain all the rules to play it. Just the relevant unique rules.

Edit: Everything else must be filled in by the players.

You cannot argue that the data sheet contains all the rules to play a terrain feature AND argue that it shouldn't be expected to contain all the rules to play a terrain feature.

'Filling in the gaps' by using the default Rules found in the rest of the book. Not by applying specific Rules designed for completely unrelated situations, all the while claiming that anyone whom believes it functions differently is wrong from a Rule as Written perspective. The sky shield, as poorly worded as it is, is functional as Written even if it does have strange quirks such as floating up to the top or being able to drop shells on units underneath it. Not because there is a gap in the Rules telling us how to do X or Y, but simply because there are no rules telling us that X and Y are restricted.

Personally,
These are flaws in the Terrain Piece itself, not the Rules surrounding it, and I honestly wonder if the Author and Sculptor where ever in the same room as each other....

JinxDragon wrote:
Using the default Rules found in the rest of the book, not by applying specific Rules designed for completely unrelated situations and claiming it is the only 'correct' way to play.

So, what are the rules for moving a vehicle onto the upper levels of a structure? A page reference would be nice.

You mean like the instructions telling us that Models can move onto the Shield by passing a Difficult Terrain test?

JinxDragon wrote:
You mean like the instructions telling us that Models can move onto the Shield by passing a Difficult Terrain test?

No, the rules for vehicles actually being on the upper levels. I did say "move onto" it was an inference to actually having one up there. We know that a vehicle cannot be on the upper level of a ruin as there is a listed restriction. This establishes a difference between the placement of vehicles and other units onto upper levels. Now, there is no reference at all to vehicles as to their positioning on the upper levels of unique terrain. Going by the old adage of "If it doesn't say that you can, then you can't." a vehicle wouldn't be allowed on the top surface of a two level unique structure. With the exception of skimmers, which are listed as being able to move onto and off of the landing pad.

Don't worry, I found it. It's in the upper right corner of page 71. In a forging the narrative box. Second paragraph. It tells you to discuss the effects that terrain would have on your vehicles. That whole, players-having-to-decide thing again.

It seems to be on just about every other page that mentions the rules for terrain? odd....

We are informed that the top of the shield is Open Terrain, can vehicles be placed on Open Terrain?

JinxDragon wrote:
We are informed that the top of the shield is Open Terrain, can vehicles be placed on Open Terrain?

Fair enough.

I do agree that there is massive amounts of problems with this terrain piece, however I don't think it is the Rules which cause the problem but the physical "model" itself.

I will state that this doesn't excuse the Rules from failing to correct the issue with the physical representation, the Author really should of had one of these things sitting on their desk prior to penning the Datasheet for it and something makes me doubt they actually did. The more and more I review threads like this, the more obvious it becomes that the Author and Sculptor had very little coordination with each other. I have yet to see a problem being put forth, outside of the 'deploy a flyer in the center of the table' question that was quickly shot down, that could not be fixed by simply removing the legs off the things. No elevation, no models being hit through the shield itself, no levitating models and likely a few other problems go away....

If one wants to keep the original height, build the thing into a hill.

JinxDragon wrote:
I do agree that there is massive amounts of problems with this terrain piece, however I don't think it is the Rules which cause the problem but the physical "model" itself.

I will state that this doesn't excuse the Rules from failing to correct the issue with the physical representation, the Author really should of had one of these things sitting on their desk prior to penning the Datasheet for it and something makes me doubt they actually did. The more and more I review threads like this, the more obvious it becomes that the Author and Sculptor had very little coordination with each other. I have yet to see a problem being put forth, outside of the 'deploy a flyer in the center of the table' question that was quickly shot down, that could not be fixed by simply removing the legs off the things. No elevation, no models being hit through the shield itself, no levitating models and likely a few other problems go away....

If one wants to keep the original height, build the thing into a hill.

Gravity usually takes care of the levitating models. If you think models can levitate, then you're not just cheating, you're breaking the law

JinxDragon wrote:
I do agree that there is massive amounts of problems with this terrain piece, however I don't think it is the Rules which cause the problem but the physical "model" itself.

I will state that this doesn't excuse the Rules from failing to correct the issue with the physical representation, the Author really should of had one of these things sitting on their desk prior to penning the Datasheet for it and something makes me doubt they actually did. The more and more I review threads like this, the more obvious it becomes that the Author and Sculptor had very little coordination with each other. I have yet to see a problem being put forth, outside of the 'deploy a flyer in the center of the table' question that was quickly shot down, that could not be fixed by simply removing the legs off the things. No elevation, no models being hit through the shield itself, no levitating models and likely a few other problems go away....

If one wants to keep the original height, build the thing into a hill.

Yeah, it causes all of these questions as well.

Is a vehicle (or any other model for that matter) allowed to be placed over top of another models base of a friendly while in open terrain? How is coherency measured with models from a unit on the ground and others atop the sky shield? How is distance to the enemy models measured from units on the ground floor to the top? Can enemy units be directly beneath one another? Can units even be partially atop the sky shield?

It's junk, with junk rules. It has to be discussed and ironed out by opponents.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does contain all the info needed to play. there are other rules that affect it as well.

You can not shoot the structure itself because it does not have an armor value, just like the Aegis Defense line. The Skyshield is just another piece of terrain that can not be destroyed.

The rules for units underneath the Skyshield are the same as any other unit on the table that would happen to be say under a bridge. So no issues there either.

What other rules effect it?????? Are you referring to rules not contained on the data sheet? Hmmmm....

I am referring to the basic rules for terrain that affects all terrain...