fortress of redemption

This is a question seeking understanding, not trying to judge. Why are people trying to find a way to deep strike a building? I know that reality has no place in the game since giant bright painted power armored soldiers don't exist in reality, but I don't understand the logic in trying to get a building to move or teleport. I'm very intrigued to hear the thought process to make it work.

Lore justification, Dark Eldar have stolen Suns and planets, moving a building is pretty minor in that regard.

Justification for me wanting to see it happen, the look of shock on the other players face when a fortress full of Dark Eldar units gets dropped on a table, it just screams Dark Eldar insane to even think of doing it.

It's just about having am advantage in the next games. Something really nobody expects. And as much as I like the idea, I really do, (I'd built my own dark Eldar fortification) I think it's just not possible.

The in addition links both ways to put a unit into reserve. And after that they say if it can't move, it's destroyed. Case clear.

So...this has taken a bit for me to read through, but my understanding is as follows:

Deep Strike: ..."to be able to Deep Strike... have the Deep Strike rule and the unit must start in reserve." The key is able too. IE, terminators don't *have* to start in reserve (except Deathwing). So just having the Deep Strike special rule doesn't automatically grant ability to Deep Strike.

Reserves: as discussed earlier, there is an exception. But it looks like the exception is solely based on models impossible to deploy.

If so, it looks like you can choose to purchase a building in reserve.

It looks like the special rules for Gauss thingy and Drop Pod ignore the basic rules.

This all seems silly to me, but if people want to do it I don't think the rules disallow it. I'm not sure that I'd want to play again a deep striking building, buy in a tournament you don't get to choose.

CurstAlchemist wrote:

If it can't move or deep strike it would be destroyed as per " if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment" part of the rule. Can't move so can't come on from the edge and thus is destroyed.

But it said if its impossible to deploy them during the deployment phase, turn 4 is not the deployment phase, and wouldnt deploying occur only before the start of turn 1 (aka the game)

As an addition, wouldnt being able to deepstrike a building via WWP imply that it is equally possible to infiltrate a building via warlord trait (the one that gives 3 units infiltrate)

As far as I know, yes.

You keep saying, if it can't move its destroyed, Cpt. But that isn't what the rule says. The rule says if it can't move AND it's impossible to deploy it, it's destroyed.

iknowinewb wrote:

CurstAlchemist wrote:

If it can't move or deep strike it would be destroyed as per " if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment" part of the rule. Can't move so can't come on from the edge and thus is destroyed.

But it said if its impossible to deploy them during the deployment phase, turn 4 is not the deployment phase, and wouldnt deploying occur only before the start of turn 1 (aka the game)

As an addition, wouldnt being able to deepstrike a building via WWP imply that it is equally possible to infiltrate a building via warlord trait (the one that gives 3 units infiltrate)

Maybe it isn't destroyed but it can't move so it can't enter play with out the deepstrike ability. It can't enter from a table edge as it doesn't move.

I would like to see images of the terrain you use to allow for this part of the infiltrate rule to work:

Quote :

Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy
unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.

The 18" one doesn't really matter much as it isn't really any different then just placing the building and infiltrating the units into the building normally. Outflank doesn't work as it can't move so can't enter play from a table edge. Teleportation, wwp, deepstrike give the unmovable object an ability to enter from reserve, outflank doesn't as it still has no means of coming from reserve into play.

No Jim. If it can't move it is destroyed.

"You keep saying, if it can't move its destroyed, Cpt. But that isn't what the rule says. The rule says if it can't move AND it's impossible to deploy it, it's destroyed."

The 'in addition' links both possibilities. If you choose to put it into reserves and if you are forced to. Because they are linked. You are ignoring the in addition.

Nevermind. It appears that only the beloved space marines get the exception as a drop pod is only immobile after it enters play. I guess Pylons are destroyed then as they aren't space marines and are a Forgeworld model.

The drop Pod has rules explicitly allowing to deep Strike and not being destroyed. I don't know about the Necron thingy though.

Like I said, the Drop Pod is the only model that is "immobile" that has a rule that allows it to deploy from reserve. It states that it only become immobile after being placed on the board. Pylons don't have this, they just have the teleportation rule I quoted earlier. Thus it can be reasoned, that as it is unable to move while in reserve, the pylon is destroyed if placed in reserve. The Drop Pod's rule essentially says that it is mobile until it has been deployed on the board.

Quote :

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered play, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised result that cannot be repaired in any way. This does not cause it to lose a Hull Point.

So I guess if you really want to be really strict with your gaming group and the rules you shouldn't allow Pylons to be teleported in. They don't have any rules that say they can move until they "enter play".

The phrase "in addition" appears only once in regards to reserves: when telling you when you HAVE to place something in Reserve. That isn't happening here. (In addition, if it is impossible to deploy a unit for any reason it must be place in Reserve.) That entire sentence doesn't apply to this discussion. So long as room was available for the Fortress, it wasn't compelled to be placed in Reserve.

The rule that tells you to destroy them tells you to do so if two conditions are met (and both must be met): the unit must be one 'such unit' (a unit which cannot move after deployment) and it must also be 'impossible to deploy' that unit.

Ergo, so long as sufficient room existed for the placement of the Fortress, its voluntary placement into Reserves does not meet both conditions, and does not trigger destruction.

Okay. It seems both of you simply want it to be that way, that's why you act so snippy. Let's just agree that we disagree and wait for the FAQ team to answer that.

No one's being snippy with you, amigo. We're (or at least, I'm) just trying to walk through the rule step-by-step to show that the destruction is conditional, and the full list of required conditions aren't met by the Fortress being placed in Reserve.

And not to be mean, but I think the odds are very slim that you will get a satisfactory answer from the FAQ team. Many emails to that 'team' are ignored. Many more are answered with a form letter promising to consider the question or to pass it up the ladder, or a form letter telling you that the best solution is for you to talk to your group and play it however you all agree it should be played. They very rarely give concrete answers, and when they do, those concrete answers can change from day to day.

I think a far more reliable way to get an answer would be to pass it to the people who design the ITC, ETC, or INAT FAQs. They'd be more likely to give you an answer, and those answers would be more likely to be applied in real life events than anything you may or may not get from the GW FAQ 'team.'

I too was not attempting to be snippy I even adopted your line of reasoning in my last post. If that is the way that you and your gaming group choose to interpret the rules (you know the people that really matter in your case) then it means that the Pylon is destroyed if placed in reserve. I have given my interpretation on how I read the rules, you don't agree, that is fine. But to exclude the Fortess on the grounds that the Drop Pod has rules saying it can move until it "enters play" you also prevent the Necron player from deep striking their Pylon.

In the end, what we say isn't important, what is important is that you and the ones you play with are satisfied with your ruling.

That's a good idea Jim. You don't have the email of those guys by accident?

CurstAlchemist wrote:

iknowinewb wrote:

CurstAlchemist wrote:

If it can't move or deep strike it would be destroyed as per " if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment" part of the rule. Can't move so can't come on from the edge and thus is destroyed.

But it said if its impossible to deploy them during the deployment phase, turn 4 is not the deployment phase, and wouldnt deploying occur only before the start of turn 1 (aka the game)

As an addition, wouldnt being able to deepstrike a building via WWP imply that it is equally possible to infiltrate a building via warlord trait (the one that gives 3 units infiltrate)

Maybe it isn't destroyed but it can't move so it can't enter play with out the deepstrike ability. It can't enter from a table edge as it doesn't move.

I would like to see images of the terrain you use to allow for this part of the infiltrate rule to work:

Quote :

Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy
unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.

The 18" one doesn't really matter much as it isn't really any different then just placing the building and infiltrating the units into the building normally. Outflank doesn't work as it can't move so can't enter play from a table edge. Teleportation, wwp, deepstrike give the unmovable object an ability to enter from reserve, outflank doesn't as it still has no means of coming from reserve into play.

I was refering to the 18" one, i was thinking of this, 1st to deploy, warlord infiltrates building, enemy does not know where is the building, infiltrate building 18" from enemy, infiltrate mandrake inside infiltrating building. Infiltrateception.

Also if the building cannot move into the board via outflank or from your own board edge (normal reserve) by turn 4, wouldnt it cause a rules paradox as it must arrive by turn 4 yet it cannot arrive by turn 4.

CptMetal wrote:

That's a good idea Jim. You don't have the email of those guys by accident?

I do not.

EDIT: Furthermore, I just got confirmation that the team that wrote the INAT FAQ has stopped doing so.

iknowinewb wrote:

Also if the building cannot move into the board via outflank or from your own board edge (normal reserve) by turn 4, wouldnt it cause a rules paradox as it must arrive by turn 4 yet it cannot arrive by turn 4.

Yes it does but as it can't move I say that it becomes destroyed as it can't be deployed on the board. It would be something you would need to resolve with your gaming group. I would just go with the can't move can't be deployed in anyway so it counts as being destroyed. Teleportation and WWP allow for a static building to be deployed while outflank doesn't grant it anyway of moving from outside of the area into the area.

Maybe give it wheels.

That seems like the most reasonable way of doing it, at least to me.

Jimsolo wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

That's a good idea Jim. You don't have the email of those guys by accident?

I do not.

EDIT: Furthermore, I just got confirmation that the team that wrote the INAT FAQ has stopped doing so.

Well, as a man with a German codex I'm going to guess you play in Europe. You'll be relieved to know that the ETC committee has already ruled in this issue, and ruled in your favor.

http://www.teambelgium.eu/ETC_Shared/European%20Team%20Championships%20-%202015%20%20_ETC_7thedition_FAQ_CLARIFICATIONS_v1.4.pdf#page30

As a filthy yank, I will be more likely to encounter ITC format rules, which have not weighed in on this.

That's settled, you filthy colonist! :-P

CptMetal wrote:

That's settled, you filthy colonist! :-P

Settled if I play in Europe, certainly.

Unfortunately, the two FAQs aren't in complete agreement, and the ITC (which seems to be preferred over here) takes a closer RAW approach, while there are several examples in the ETC of rules not being interpreted, but re-written. (Their Harlequins ruling is patently against the written rules.)

I still think the RAW allows for it, but if the ITC rules the opposite way, I'll happily play it like that.

Have you already send it to the ITC Team?

I have not. I'm sure you can find their information on the Frontline Gaming website, if you were so inclined.