Bikes and ruins

[Chaplain Otho]

Ok I played against Ravenwing on Tuesday on Crusade mission.

 

I placed an objective on the top part of a ruin, about 6 inches up,

 

Question was can his bikes get up to claim or contest it.

 

There is nothing in the terrain rules about levels and we didn't see anything about whether bikes can move vertically. There wasn't a ramp or easy way for them to get up so we said they couldn't

 

Does anyone know if we played this correctly?

[FragEmAll]

I don't know about the official interpretation of the rules but I play white scars and we agree how we are doing objectives before the game. It normally goes one of 3 ways

 

1) we count bikes being able to go up levels if I agree to take a dangerous terrain test. the reasoning is that things are a bit abstract and the thought of pulling off some stunts/riding up stairs to get up a level appeals to me, even if I wouldn't normally take dangerous terrain tests due to my Chapter Tactics.

 

2) we use the unit coherency in terrain rule. Normally a unit has to stay within 2" but can be up to 6" up. Using that same logic we agree that up to 6" vertically is perfectly acceptable for contesting.

 

3) we agree that bikes can't go up buildings and if an objective is up there I can't claim it. Obviously it goes without saying that will ravage anything going near it to stop them getting it either.

[ValourousHeart]

As FragEmAll said that it is best to agree about this ahead of time... However I would like to point out an extra point.

 

Let's say you agree that bike can not move up levels w/o a ramp.... Which I think is the right call. But maybe we should consider building some ramps.

 

Then let's say that you put all the objectives on the 3rd floor or higher.... Which I think is a DB move when you know what army you're opponent is bringing. And considering you chose not to supply any ramps.

 

Now let's say your opponent looks at the table and says "hey why don't we swap armies this game. It will get us both more experience playing different kinds of armies and better understand our own armies."

 

So I ask you would you say YES because you like a challenge and the idea of a game that at best you can tie.

 

Or would you say NO because you had intentionally F'ed your friend by your choice of objective locations.

 

Back in 4th edition I wrote an article on here explaining a tactical view of terrain setup and objective placement to aid the fledgling RW players against beardy tactics like choking down with terrain key parts of the board and ways to prevent their opponents from placing objectives in passive denal areas, like the 3rd floor.

 

Some people bashed that article claim that I was gaming for advantage.... To be clear what they were saying was that they should be able to place objectives on the third floor so I can't get to them, but I should not be able to place an objective at the base of that building to prevent them from placing it on top.

 

Anyway, it is one thing for you both to agree to play a game where one side can't win and base the victory on how far they get... It is another hamstring his army with table setup.