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.

Can you?

I was under the impression that models cannnot stand on other models and nothing in the landing pads rules or errata change this. I am very confused how this fortification works in 8th edition.

The rules aren't particularly detailed here huh.

There is implicit permission from the landing pad configuration rule that models can be placed on the pad. Probably need a faq to clarify.

Surprised it looks like battlements are no longer a thing.

Yeah, it doesn't work at all in a RAW standpoint(it rarely ever has).

In 8th, models on top of a bastion are only there for looks, they are actually "inside".

The skyshield requires models on top of its own model for its rules to work and that is not technically legal. So we follow the basics of designer's notes: use common sense; it is trying to give you permission for models to stand on it, so we let models stand on it.

It does lead to a small rules hole. It has stats, it can die. If you take it off the board.. Do the models on top fall down? What if there are models underneath ?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It does lead to a small rules hole. It has stats, it can die. If you take it off the board.. Do the models on top fall down? What if there are models underneath ?

That part at least is addressed by the fact that you're instructed to not remove it when destroyed but toncount it as ruins terrain.

Gendif wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It does lead to a small rules hole. It has stats, it can die. If you take it off the board.. Do the models on top fall down? What if there are models underneath ?

That part at least is addressed by the fact that you're instructed to not remove it when destroyed but toncount it as ruins terrain.

Forgive me, but I'm not seeing that in the index.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Gendif wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It does lead to a small rules hole. It has stats, it can die. If you take it off the board.. Do the models on top fall down? What if there are models underneath ?

That part at least is addressed by the fact that you're instructed to not remove it when destroyed but toncount it as ruins terrain.

Forgive me, but I'm not seeing that in the index.

Ah, apologies, I should have mentioned that It's covered in the errata for Index Imperium 2. Gives it a new ability called wrecked landing pad.

Even if we assume (against RAW) that friendly models are supposed to be able to be on top of the skyshield landing pad (as how else are you supposed to use its rules), we're still left with the big question of whether or not enemy models are allowed to.

Yes, you're not supposed to be able to move within 1" of enemy models (which the skyshield landing pad is), but when charging (or falling back) you can...so are you able to move on top of it then?

The whole thing is a mess RAW as it currently stands.

Sure you can. And you're still a jackass if you do it. Same as last edition.

The Datasheet tells you enemy models can be on top, via the 5++ rule's wording.

"Shielded: All models (friend or foe) that are on top of the Skyshield Landing pad..."

So enemy models can be on top, in a change to the norm.

Obvious Intent does not make a written Rule....
That is what people are highlighting with this particular Model, there is nothing granting permission for an Enemy to be within 1 inch aside from the obvious intent.

Of course... just stating a written rule demonstrating enemy models can be on it. Otherwise it wouldn't be worded this way. Of course they omitted bits, but this helps find intent, no?

It is Game Workshop, of course they omitted important bits within the Rules for this particular Model... should we be expecting differently by now?
This, and many other Terrain related questions, all boil down to that fact Game Workshop has given up on any comprehensive rules for 'scenery pieces.'

I used to laugh over the fact we had pages of Rules, all designed to make it so buildings such as the Aquila Macro-cannon would have access to 'Model specific' Rules when they needed to behave as Models. It seemed like a very complicated way to simply get to the point we are at now, where Buildings are simply Models in your army, but such a system had one huge benefit: They where still Scenery Pieces by default. If you needed to place a Model on top of a Bastion nothing prevented you from doing so, as it was a Scenery Piece. If you needed to shoot the Heavy Bolter then everything functioned as intended, simply follow the Building Rules as they allowed the Bastion to count as a Model for purpose of shooting weapons. Now that they threw those pages of Rules out and simply stated 'is a Model,' well... that really broke a lot of things!

Now, all we have is this:
Many hobbyists enjoy making their own terrain features from scratch (thus the term ‘scratch-built terrain’). If you wish to
incorporate such terrain features into your battlefields, you and your opponent will need to devise your own rules for them.
Don’t worry – this is very easy to do, especially if you use the rules presented on these pages as examples and inspiration. You
could, for example, model your ruins on a scenic base, and agree that the base itself is simply an extension of the ruins and follows
all the same rules. Perhaps you will create a river (presumably a fantastical one filled with lava or acid) with entirely new rules,
agreeing that the only models that can cross it safely are those that can FLY . Some players prefer to say that certain terrain features,
such as giant rock formations or imposing sealed buildings, are simply impassable to any models – creating obstacles on the
battlefield for armies to manoeuvre around. You could make up some truly exotic rules for your terrain, such as creating a portal
to the warp through which Daemons can materialise throughout your battle. Anything goes, so long as all players agree that it
sounds like fun!

That's all lovely, but those are the terrain guidelines. We're discussing a specific model.

A Model which lacks any Rule saying enemies can move within 1 inch of this Model during the Movement Phase.

The only saving grace on all of these scenery pieces is the Keyword of BUILDING, but the Authors have done nothing with this keyword in order to allow these Scenery Pieces to function as... well... Scenery Pieces. The closest thing we have is a vague line within Scratch Built Terrain telling us players tend to treat buildings as Impassable Terrain... yet another concept they have not been explained within the book. That is my gripe and this one piece of Terrain having 'implied consent' does nothing to address the cause of the problem. We simply do not have permission to treat Buildings as anything other then a standard Model. This is causing all sorts of problems that can only be corrected by giving us rules that allow Buildings and other obvious Scenery Pieces to act as Scenery Pieces.

Thus my point still stands: The Authors need to give us some actual Rules past 'Figure it all out for your own damned selves.'