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.

So I am messing about with the idea of sticking some Leman Russ on top of the landing pad during deployment with the idea of :

- giving them a 5++ save
- covering the top as best as possible to prevent them being charged (no space for models to fit

Now I am confident on the above but here is the thing... what happens to the Leman Russ if the landing pad is destroyed? The rules say the landing pad turns to ruins, but we know that VEHICLES cannot go up in ruins but they are already there. In my head they simply lose the 5++ but now potentially gain a +1 cover save as they are in terrain and will be obscured .

Thoughts ??

PS - its a rules interaction question not a competitive question.
Cheers

commandojimbob wrote:

So I am messing about with the idea of sticking some Leman Russ on top of the landing pad during deployment with the idea of :

- giving them a 5++ save
- covering the top as best as possible to prevent them being charged (no space for models to fit

Now I am confident on the above but here is the thing... what happens to the Leman Russ if the landing pad is destroyed? The rules say the landing pad turns to ruins, but we know that VEHICLES cannot go up in ruins but they are already there. In my head they simply lose the 5++ but now potentially gain a +1 cover save as they are in terrain and will be obscured .

Thoughts ??

PS - its a rules interaction question not a competitive question.
Cheers

I believe the tank would be unable to move but would also not get the +1 for cover. It can't move because any move would be into ruins, it can't get the cover because it needs to be 50% obscured to claim the +1 and the skyshield pad has basically no ability to obscure the target.

So this should be moved to YMDC, but there are some issues. First, you have to decided to ignore the RAW that YOUR models aren't allowed to deploy on YOUR Pad to begin with. RAW, only ENEMY models can deploy on top of it, which is dumb, but dems da rulz.

Next, and I'd have to check this one, I believe vehicles can indeed DEPLOY on ruins, they just aren't able to move onto them later. So if you are on the SLP and it gets destroyed, you just sit there for the rest of the game unable to more (which is probably fine for a LR)

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
it can't get the cover because it needs to be 50% obscured to claim the +1 and the skyshield pad has basically no ability to obscure the target.

I believe this is incorrect if the side panels are up. Due to the elevated position of the Pad and the side panels, it's quite easy for even a large model like a LR to be 50% obscured from an enemy on the ground. In fact, if the enemy is close enough, and the LR was set back on the Pad, the LR may be 100% blocked from LoS.
And Per the OP, the intent here is to always have those panels up in the "Shielded" position

-

 Galef wrote:
So this should be moved to YMDC, but there are some issues. First, you have to decided to ignore the RAW that YOUR models aren't allowed to deploy on YOUR Pad to begin with. RAW, only ENEMY models can deploy on top of it, which is dumb, but dems da rulz.

Next, and I'd have to check this one, I believe vehicles can indeed DEPLOY on ruins, they just aren't able to move onto them later. So if you are on the SLP and it gets destroyed, you just sit there for the rest of the game unable to more (which is probably fine for a LR)

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
it can't get the cover because it needs to be 50% obscured to claim the +1 and the skyshield pad has basically no ability to obscure the target.

I believe this is incorrect if the side panels are up. Due to the elevated position of the Pad and the side panels, it's quite easy for even a large model like a LR to be 50% obscured from an enemy on the ground. In fact, if the enemy is close enough, and the LR was set back on the Pad, the LR may be 100% blocked from LoS.
And Per the OP, the intent here is to always have those panels up in the "Shielded" position

-

Sorry for my ignorance but I do not understand your first line... why cant they start on top of the SLP ?

As for the other points, that's my understanding too of ruins and cover for vehicles... Q. is it in cover, A. Yes, Q. is it obscured 50% plus, A. Most likely it will be due to elevation

commandojimbob wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance but I do not understand your first line... why cant they start on top of the SLP ?

For the same reason you aren't allowed to deploy Guardsmen on the LR. The core rules do not allow models to be on top of each other. The SLP is a model, ergo you need permission to put models on top of it, but the only permission is given to ENEMY models. It's dumb and needs to be fixed, but until it does, we have to house rule being able to put models on top (which most of us are ok with)

-

 Galef wrote:

commandojimbob wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance but I do not understand your first line... why cant they start on top of the SLP ?

For the same reason you aren't allowed to deploy Guardsmen on the LR. The core rules do not allow models to be on top of each other. The SLP is a model, ergo you need permission to put models on top of it, but the only permission is given to ENEMY models. It's dumb and needs to be fixed, but until it does, we have to house rule being able to put models on top (which most of us are ok with)

-

Wow ok... never knew that ! I have used SLP before with no issues. I guess people usually know what it is intended to be used for and don't blink twice deploying that way.

Indeed, the SLP is my go-to example of RAW vs RAI. There is a seemingly universal consensus the RAI you should be able to put YOUR units on YOUR SLP, otherwise why bother putting it in your list?

The other downside to the SLP in 8E is that Forts are deployed in your ZONE, whereas in prior editions, they could be deployed in your table HALF. A previous tactic was to deploy your SLP partway in your zone so you could deploy units on it, but partway forward to increase the elevation LOS blocking. This forced enemy units to either move to elevated positions (which helped you see them too) or to move much closer.

This kind of enemy movement manipulation is something I miss about the SLP now. It's still possible, but really hard to pull off. And if you start manipulating it using RAW, there's a chance your opponent might not be happy and start saying "well you're not allowed on the SLP anyway"
So no fun for either player at that point

-

The rules for SLP is quite the mess, and what you seem to be doing is gaming the system & exploiting it - I'd discuss with your play group how you want to house rule it first instead of showing up with what you have planned and ruin the game night for everyone.