# Skyshield Landing Pad: a total waste of time?



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

It just occurred to me that when fliers had the Deep Strike ability these were way more viable. Having a space to land your flier in whatever facing you wanted would have been great. In this aspect, all you're going to do is let your opponent know where you'll be DS'ing your troops. However, as a defence platform it's friggin' tits. Raised to benefit LoS, 4++ (not cover, for you flamers out there) and if the enemy gets in contact with it they have to totally beat out the unit holding it in order to unfurl the shields and potentially drop their own units arriving from reserve into your lines unfettered. Either way, it's 75 points and therefore pretty damn cheap in terms of how much protection it has to offer.

Thoughts? I kinda like the model. It would also be cool to use in objective based games.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

It's rules can be real nice, shooty units love sitting on it with the invul. Downside, the thing is massively huge beyond belief.


----------



## Xlioe (Jul 19, 2012)

Yeah one of my mates has build one and so far we have just used it as a objective and a bit of scenery and not using its rules.

But it is massive, can get a rhino under it happily


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

CSM's love the thing.


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

How easily can they be integrated into the other GW terrain kits? I got two in the vague intention of having one as part of a larger structure... but they haven't arrived at home yet.


----------



## Xlioe (Jul 19, 2012)

Not sure, they are only really made of a few bits. Four bits for the top flat area with each one being a quarter and then the legs are each made of two halves glued together


----------



## Da Joka (Feb 20, 2009)

Actually, my friends and I have been talking, and we believe that they can be better than an Aegis Defense Line. 

Sure, it doesn't come with the handy Skyfire weapon, BUT as it grants an invul save, it still proves protection from Heldrakes, and other flyers that can get close enough to see over the wall, it is also great against Tau, who will just marker light your cover away. And provides it's save vs barrage weapons.

Hell if you stick stuff under the shield they are all but immune to Barrage weapons.

It can also be very tricky to assault units on top of the Skyshield if you are not on top as well.

Not to mention that Chaos Worshipers of Tzeentch will enjoy increased 3++ save.

Sooo Waste of Time? No, not by a long shot.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Da Joka said:


> it still proves protection from Heldrakes


This unto itself is reason enough for one.



scscofield said:


> It's rules can be real nice, shooty units love sitting on it with the invul. Downside, the thing is massively huge beyond belief.





Xlioe said:


> But it is massive, can get a rhino under it happily


What are the measurements on this sucker??? I have only seen the GW picture with a Valkyrie on the pad, so I knew it was bigger than most things. You can fit a Rhino under it?!



Da Joka said:


> Hell if you stick stuff under the shield they are all but immune to Barrage weapons.


Don't barrage weapons work out of LoS? A good scatter dice roll and that immunity is null.



Da Joka said:


> they can be better than an Aegis Defense Line


Here I lose your logic. Does it take out enemy fliers BEFORE the get to shoot? 'Cuz that matters to me. Huge. 4++ and 4+ cover are very similar to marines, and if I can stop the second Vector Strike from happening because of Skyfire that means WAY more than an invulnerable save. Preventative measures as opposed to reactionary measures, right?

I don't mean to shoot it down, I just need more than "we think it's better" on this one.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Ntaw: Barrage weapons strike the highest level of a building that is under the template hole.

And yes, you can fit a bunch of things beneath the Skyshield. Bikers (as long as they don't have a standard) are my favorite. They can zip forward, hide behind the pillars, and move as if through open ground.

But yeah, Havocs w/ MoT (if my FLGS weren't pissy about it and let that combo happen).

Some excellent points there, Joka. Hadn't considered many of those.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I have been tinkering on the idea of putting one of these on an Imperial Baneblade and Chaos it to the max.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Mossy Toes said:


> But yeah, Havocs w/ MoT (if my FLGS weren't pissy about it and let that combo happen).


I always think its sad when hobby shops restrict things clearly allowed in the rules. Its not even a doggy interpretation of the rules or asking permission to use forge world stuff.


----------



## Moriouce (Oct 20, 2009)

How many inches across is a Skyshield by the way? After reading this I thinking of making one for my Eldars. 4++ save reapers and support weapons for 75p sounds like a good deal.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Am I to take it that because Vector Strikes make the model count as if they had fired a weapon that turn they count as a shooting attack? 

Otherwise the 4++ from the Skyshield will not be valid, as it specifies that the save it against shooting attacks.

All things considered I am liking this fortification more and more.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

http://www.apocprod.com/2013/02/18/40k-tactica-review-skyshield-landing-pad/

This is an awesome review of it, outlining some kind of hilarious LoS issues that the landing pad has due to its size.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

ntaw said:


> Am I to take it that because Vector Strikes make the model count as if they had fired a weapon that turn they count as a shooting attack?
> 
> Otherwise the 4++ from the Skyshield will not be valid, as it specifies that the save it against shooting attacks.
> 
> All things considered I am liking this fortification more and more.


That's a tricky one, it is an autohit so it is a bit hard to tell from that what type of attack it is. The attacks come from the model's Strength so it is more akin to a Close Combat attack.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The attacks come from the model's Strength so it is more akin to a Close Combat attack.


That's what I thought it was to be honest, but it counts as a shooting attack for the purposes of firing further weapons in the shooting phase so why would it count as something else the phase before? Or I am interpreting this wrong. That happens.

It's a big deal for the Skyshield, as the 4++ specifies shooting attacks and I will basically always be up against two VS'ing Heldrakes and a FMC so long as my buddy and I game. If this thing doesn't work against Vector Strikes it's right back into the bag of crap ideas I've had for trying to involve fortifications. Not that it still doesn't work well for other things, but that's a big hole in what I would use it for.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

ntaw said:


> That's what I thought it was to be honest, but it counts as a shooting attack for the purposes of firing further weapons in the shooting phase so why would it count as something else the phase before? Or I am interpreting this wrong. That happens.
> 
> It's a big deal for the Skyshield, as the 4++ specifies shooting attacks and I will basically always be up against two VS'ing Heldrakes and a FMC so long as my buddy and I game. If this thing doesn't work against Vector Strikes it's right back into the bag of crap ideas I've had for trying to involve fortifications. Not that it still doesn't work well for other things, but that's a big hole in what I would use it for.


It counts as already having fired one of your 4 allowed weapons so it's a little bit grey as to whether that means it is a shooting attack as such. I'd be tempted to go with a fluff explanation in that CC attacks don't get the shielding and as Vector Strike is grabbing with the talons then I'd be putting them in that same boat until I find something more concrete to go off.

I'd be more inclined to take a Bastion which I think gives better protection and also has an Icarus or Quad gun.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> It counts as already having fired one of your 4 allowed weapons so it's a little bit grey as to whether that means it is a shooting attack as such. I'd be tempted to go with a fluff explanation in that CC attacks don't get the shielding and as Vector Strike is grabbing with the talons then I'd be putting them in that same boat until I find something more concrete to go off.


Right now the only thing in the BRB that references our woes here implies that it counts as a shooting attack. As much as I agree that it's likely their claws, I'm on the other side of your fence. Until I get something saying it's a CC attack it's a shooting attack where you are the projectile.



Magpie_Oz said:


> I'd be more inclined to take a Bastion which I think gives better protection and also has an Icarus or Quad gun.


*and also can be upgraded to have an Icarus or Quad gun. At it's base cost she comes with heavy bolters on each side. That being said, units inside the Bastion are immune to being hit with Vector Strikes, are they not? And it has firing points "as per model" which is tits.

Got anything to add to your vote for Bastions over Skyshields?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I'd guess it could vector Strike the bastion itself, same as attacking a vehicle I guess.
You could VC whom ever is manning the AA gun on the bastion tho'.

Just a thought, can a vector Strike be made on someone underneath the Skyshield ? You can't attack what you can't see after all.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

I would say no you couldn't on models underneath it. No LoS, it would be like vector striking guys in a transport.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

The only requirement in the VS USR entry is that the model has to have moved over it. No mention of LoS, and trust me. 

I've lost a lot of marines to the wording of that rule, GW.



scscofield said:


> No LoS, it would be like vector striking guys in a transport.


It would be, save for that there are rules saying you can't target the unit in a transport or inside a battlement. Being sheltered by ruins or underneath a Skyshield? Not so covered.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

ntaw said:


> It would be, save for that there are rules saying you can't target the unit in a transport or inside a battlement. Being sheltered by ruins or underneath a Skyshield? Not so covered.


But the main thing that is missing is being able to allocate wounds to a model that is out of LOS, something only blasts have and exception for.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

You could always assume that the Vector Striking model is going under the Landing Pad. :laugh::laugh: It is almost tall enough for a Land Raider to fit under.

My concern is Indirect Barrage. True it does not need LoS, but how could it ever hit a unit under the center of the landing pad? And given the rules for Blasts affecting different levels in ruins, if you were targeting the bottom unit, anything on top could not be hit.

Just me being the devil's advocate though.


Anyway, as for the OP. I find the idea of the Skyshield interesting, especially in an army that has Skyfire already and powerful, long range units. But the weapon emplacements are very hard to pass up. I'd say take an ADL and a SLP in double FOC but double ADL or double Bastion is fun too.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Page 100.

Barrage weapons can only ever affect the level that is under the centre of the template. You could get the template half under if the hole is over the ground level but otherwise you can only hit the top of the landing pad.

AS far as the ADL goes, I'd be putting my ADL and Icarus Lascannon on top of the landing pad in a double force org !


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

It figures. I'm saying Barrage but taking about standard Blasts. Must be tired. Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

ah ok, I thought the post read a bit odd. 

I'd reckon a blast could scatter underneath without any worries, it wouldn't hit the top unless you aimed at another nearby object at the same level though. So don't put you skyshield near ruins.

Actually that is a thought, what if you abut the skysheild to a ruin, can you walk from one the other normally ?


----------

