Unoccupied buildings, page 94, can't be shot or smacked. Okay.

What happens if a template target & hits the clowns on the upper battlement? Say, an Orbital Bomb or Vindicator pops a STR 10 on them. Sure the the infantry on the top get to poop their drawers, but the building remains unmolested, yes?

Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

However, there is no way (with current building models) for a blast template to be over the battlements without also being over the model. The building takes the hit as normal.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

However, there is no way (with current building models) for a blast template to be over the battlements without also being over the model Building. The building takes the hit as normal.

FTFY with the red because buildings are not models as 40k Defines.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

However, there is no way (with current building models) for a blast template to be over the battlements without also being over the model. The building takes the hit as normal.

Where is there permission to hit and damage the building if it is unoccupied? How/why is the building being hit when the battlements on top are what was targeted?

That section seems ambiguous to me. You are forbidden to 'shoot', 'charge' or 'attack' an unoccupied building, but there is no mention of what happens if a building is hit when attacking a unit on or near the building.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
That section seems ambiguous to me. You are forbidden to 'shoot', 'charge' or 'attack' an unoccupied building, but there is no mention of what happens if a building is hit when attacking a unit on or near the building.

In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

If the unit were beside a building and the blast were to touch the building (either through scattering entirely off the target unit or just enough to touch/overlap a portion of the building) however, I would agree there is some ambiguity on how to handle that particular situation.

And these kinds of arguments are why my group decided to say that if there are guys on a battlement, the fortification is occupied. Stupid GW rules that make no sense.

Is it similar to being unable to target your own units, but you can scatter on them accidentally?

My understanding would be an accidental hit would be resolved as normal.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
That section seems ambiguous to me. You are forbidden to 'shoot', 'charge' or 'attack' an unoccupied building, but there is no mention of what happens if a building is hit when attacking a unit on or near the building.

In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

If the unit were beside a building and the blast were to touch the building (either through scattering entirely off the target unit or just enough to touch/overlap a portion of the building) however, I would agree there is some ambiguity on how to handle that particular situation.

While I completely agree with you from a RAI and HIWPI point of view, I will play Devil's advocate regarding RAW. The rules that cover blasts being resolved on different levels only relate to Ruins, not Buildings. In the case of a blast being placed on the battlements, the Building would still be under the marker.

Having read and re-read and then consumed the building rules in depths for a few previous threads, and finally cursing the existence of the FAQ removing the building 'tag' from the battlements as it now means tanks can climb ladders*, I have come to understand just how twisted some of the rule writers over at Game Workshop are. A few of them actual do keep track of the terminology definitions put forth by earlier sections of the books and use it to write some rules that read completely different outside of those definitions. It wouldn't be so bad if they had proper editors, or didn't do 'in house' play testing of the rules, but we are talking about Game Workshop so I am not at all surprised we have situations where logic is thrown out the window but I am digressing thanks to a personal bias against badly written building rules.

So back on topic, one thing is very obvious though: You have to discount the hit against the building.

Putting aside the argument that buildings are not models, they are not, the rules for attacking and damaging the building are all written with the intention of a unit being inside said building. The largest example of this is the fact the building will never have Hull Points or Wounds. Any damage generated by the attack is instead resolved against the embarked unit, with only a handful of results containing a secondary effects that do have a possibility of changing the building type or rendering a emplaced weapon useless. Notice I didn't say 'have a chance of damaging or destroying the building' because none of the results can do that. The most devastating result against a building does not 'remove it as a casualty' or even 'turn it into a wreck' like we see with other models using a damage table, but simply changes the building type to one that can not be embarked into.

Given that the primary damage generated can never be applied to unoccupied buildings, and the secondary damage doesn't actually do anything to damage/destroy the building, it is already an uphill battle to state that a blast marker has the ability to inflict damage on an unoccupied building.

Given that we have rules written in a way that they can not be applied, we then have to take a closer look as to why they can not be applied. The idea that terrain is not 'models' explains this very well, as the marker/template weapons require you to count models hit in order to begin generating a wound pool against the unit those models exist in. If it isn't a model, and not part of a unit, then you do not have permission to include it in the calculations. This solves all the problems as now you don't have to worry how to apply damage to a building that can not, technically, be damaged. It also hold water as for why other types of terrain can not be damaged as, outside of one or two with unique rules, other terrain lacks the same characteristics required for calculating damage against them as well. If they are also not 'models,' as per the game definition of a model, then you do not run into the paradox of having to apply damage to a tree that has no rules on how it is damaged.

*On that tank thing: I am not kidding, the only thing preventing a tank from evoking the unique embarking rules found in the battlement section was a 'pure infantry only' rule. This restriction was a blanket restriction on all buildings, which the battlement would of been included under thanks to the multiple-part structure rules. That FAQ removed the building tag, it didn't even need to in order to explain the answer but did because... again bad writing from Game Workshop. Therefore you can place tanks on battlements, even during game, by evoking the ladder as an access point and pointing out that any model can do so.


Personally : - I think they should of just made buildings into 'immobile transport vehicles,' with hull points and all the other characteristics you would expect.

It wouldn't be hard to then have a special rule that all buildings unoccupied by enemy forces are treated as friendly models. This stops the whole 'what happens if a blast marker scatters' question, while keeping the rest of the core rules intact as the building still can't be targeted directly. I would be even more happy to have that special rule reversed, they are enemy models unless a friendly is embarked with a secondary unique rule to allow both sides to embark in these 'enemy transports.' That way we can deliberately attack them, hoping to either turn them into wrecks we might be able to fire over the top of, or at the very least deny the enemy the ability to occupy them before they actually do so. In any case it would give a 'destructible terrain' feel to the game, and anyone whom has played a game which lets you change the terrain for tactical advantage will tell you how 'cool' that is.

JinxDragon wrote:

Personally : - I think they should of just made buildings into 'immobile transport vehicles,' with hull points and all the other characteristics you would expect.

It wouldn't be hard to then have a special rule that all buildings unoccupied by enemy forces are treated as friendly models. This stops the whole 'what happens if a blast marker scatters' question, while keeping the rest of the core rules intact as the building still can't be targeted directly. I would be even more happy to have that special rule reversed, they are enemy models unless a friendly is embarked with a secondary unique rule to allow both sides to embark in these 'enemy transports.' That way we can deliberately attack them, hoping to either turn them into wrecks we might be able to fire over the top of, or at the very least deny the enemy the ability to occupy them before they actually do so. In any case it would give a 'destructible terrain' feel to the game, and anyone whom has played a game which lets you change the terrain for tactical advantage will tell you how 'cool' that is.

Completely agree with giving buildings hull points etc and treating them as enemy models unless a friendly is embarked in it. That would have been MUCH more "cinematic" and certainly easier to grasp.

JinxDragon wrote:
Having read and re-read and then consumed the building rules in depths for a few previous threads, and finally cursing the existence of the FAQ removing the building 'tag' from the battlements as it now means tanks can climb ladders*, I have come to understand just how twisted some of the rule writers over at Game Workshop are. A few of them actual do keep track of the terminology definitions put forth by earlier sections of the books and use it to write some rules that read completely different outside of those definitions. It wouldn't be so bad if they had proper editors, or didn't do 'in house' play testing of the rules, but we are talking about Game Workshop so I am not at all surprised we have situations where logic is thrown out the window but I am digressing thanks to a personal bias against badly written building rules.

So back on topic, one thing is very obvious though: You have to discount the hit against the building.

Putting aside the argument that buildings are not models, they are not, the rules for attacking and damaging the building are all written with the intention of a unit being inside said building. The largest example of this is the fact the building will never have Hull Points or Wounds. Any damage generated by the attack is instead resolved against the embarked unit, with only a handful of results containing a secondary effects that do have a possibility of changing the building type or rendering a emplaced weapon useless. Notice I didn't say 'have a chance of damaging or destroying the building' because none of the results can do that. The most devastating result against a building does not 'remove it as a casualty' or even 'turn it into a wreck' like we see with other models using a damage table, but simply changes the building type to one that can not be embarked into.

Given that the primary damage generated can never be applied to unoccupied buildings, and the secondary damage doesn't actually do anything to damage/destroy the building, it is already an uphill battle to state that a blast marker has the ability to inflict damage on an unoccupied building.

Given that we have rules written in a way that they can not be applied, we then have to take a closer look as to why they can not be applied. The idea that terrain is not 'models' explains this very well, as the marker/template weapons require you to count models hit in order to begin generating a wound pool against the unit those models exist in. If it isn't a model, and not part of a unit, then you do not have permission to include it in the calculations. This solves all the problems as now you don't have to worry how to apply damage to a building that can not, technically, be damaged. It also hold water as for why other types of terrain can not be damaged as, outside of one or two with unique rules, other terrain lacks the same characteristics required for calculating damage against them as well. If they are also not 'models,' as per the game definition of a model, then you do not run into the paradox of having to apply damage to a tree that has no rules on how it is damaged.

*On that tank thing: I am not kidding, the only thing preventing a tank from evoking the unique embarking rules found in the battlement section was a 'pure infantry only' rule. This restriction was a blanket restriction on all buildings, which the battlement would of been included under thanks to the multiple-part structure rules. That FAQ removed the building tag, it didn't even need to in order to explain the answer but did because... again bad writing from Game Workshop. Therefore you can place tanks on battlements, even during game, by evoking the ladder as an access point and pointing out that any model can do so.


Personally : - I think they should of just made buildings into 'immobile transport vehicles,' with hull points and all the other characteristics you would expect.

It wouldn't be hard to then have a special rule that all buildings unoccupied by enemy forces are treated as friendly models. This stops the whole 'what happens if a blast marker scatters' question, while keeping the rest of the core rules intact as the building still can't be targeted directly. I would be even more happy to have that special rule reversed, they are enemy models unless a friendly is embarked with a secondary unique rule to allow both sides to embark in these 'enemy transports.' That way we can deliberately attack them, hoping to either turn them into wrecks we might be able to fire over the top of, or at the very least deny the enemy the ability to occupy them before they actually do so. In any case it would give a 'destructible terrain' feel to the game, and anyone whom has played a game which lets you change the terrain for tactical advantage will tell you how 'cool' that is.

That was a massive wall of text, but I do not see any rules to show why you think the template rule on 94 would not apply.

Since the topic is about buildings, mind if we add some questions about assualts? It says on page 92 a building with a bastion is considered 2 small buildings put together. It says you may assault a unit in an adjacent building. But i reading the rules it doesnt seem like you can simply charge into the building from the ground floor outside.

Example,
Can Deamon prince in base to base with a bastion charge a unit inside? I would think, No.
Can a deamon prince jump up to the battlements on top of a bastion, assuming there are no units up there, and then charge the unit inside the bastion? I would say yes.

Is this the general consensus?
Thoughts.

Tsilber wrote:
Since the topic is about buildings, mind if we add some questions about assualts? It says on page 92 a building with a bastion is considered 2 small buildings put together. It says you may assault a unit in an adjacent building. But i reading the rules it doesnt seem like you can simply charge into the building from the ground floor outside.

Example,
Can Deamon prince in base to base with a bastion charge a unit inside? I would think, No.
Can a deamon prince jump up to the battlements on top of a bastion, assuming there are no units up there, and then charge the unit inside the bastion? I would say yes.

Is this the general consensus?
Thoughts.

The FAQ totally changed how the bastion works in regards to being a building.

In short
Page 52, Template weapons:
This page highlights how you calculate the number of hits against your target and any unfortunate model to be under the template. Notice the key word there is models, anything that is not classified as a model is not included in this calculation. For a building to be hit by a template, or blast marker for that matter as it has similar wording, it would need to be a model in order for you to include it in the 'To Hit' calculations.

Buildings Not being Models :-
Page 3, Other important information:
This section tells us that models, as defined by the rules, have two characteristics: A profile and a Unit Type. All terrain lack these things in full, though two do comes close. The first is gun encampments, which have a profile but luck a unit type. The second is buildings, but they have a lot less then a gun encampment as they have only an Armour value. It is debatable if they have a unit type because they use aspects of a vehicle type: transport. Those rules also highlight that not all vehicle rules apply, giving us a incomplete list of which is which and no mention on the 'type' carrying over.

Still they lack a profile:
If you find this to be in error, show me where it states a buildings hull points and ballistic skills, something needed for it to classify as a 'vehicle profile.'

Dissecting building Rules :-
One of the biggest things about the building rules is the fact they exist, so many of them exist and they are greatly different from the normal rules for things. The very first thing the 'buildings are effected by template' group has to convince this board of is why they have permission to apply the standard rule instead of the more specific rules we are given for buildings. There are even very unique rules designed for just that purpose, page 94, so it is clear we are meant to apply these rules to the situation.

Now lets look at those rules:
First, Template weapons can be used on the unit inside a building
Second, Template weapons generate hits differently in this situation
Third, those hits include one to the building using all the normal rules for buildings being hit

So we have a rule with three parts and two of those parts require the building to be occupied. Not only that, but the first one states that the weapon can only be used against the unit inside of the building. Putting aside the debate over the status of 'model' in and of itself, if the weapon can only be used against this 'model' when it is occupied then we have a restriction preventing you from including it in the calculation. However let us assume for a moment this isn't a big hole in the 'templates can hit building' argument and move forward. I will also assume somewhere out there is evidence that a player is allowed to half apply a rule when the majority of it can not apply to the situation.

Let us move on to looking how a 'normal' hit s resolved against a building, one page back:
First, you make a roll To Hit, well we can pass on that because it is auto-hit.
Second, you roll against the AV of the building.
Third, You resolve damage against the unit inside the building...

Now we have reached the biggest problem with these rules, without a unit inside of the building you can not apply the damage generated by the hit itself. This is the problem with the lack of hull points or giving us rules to treat them like vehicles, the only way to resolve the rules completely is if they are occupied. Still let us continue with the above assumption still in place, that we can half apply rules because the 'damage table' might give us some sort of sliver of a chance to the 'template hit unoccupied buildings' group.

The table on the next page has seven results and it looks like five of them have secondary effects that could affect the building itself in a negative way. Of those five only two had effects that did not, in and of themselves, also require the building to be occupied for the entirety of the rule to be applied. It is pretty clear the rules written in the damage chart section where also written with only occupied buildings in mind.

At this point we would be applying a sliver of a single rule applied by a third of a rule which itself is applied by a third of a rule governing how this particular weapon type interacts with Buildings. All because every rule we are required to use to resolve this situation involves the building being occupied. This includes several potential restrictions found throughout the building section, on top of the repetitive clear intent that buildings need to be occupied, that I personally really hate because I want destructible terrain!

I think it is pretty much proven that buildings are not designed to have the standard combat rules applied to them, including the standard rules for Template weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A quickly before bed, For Tsliber:

A Daemon Prince can not embark into the building itself, as they have restrictions preventing monstrous creatures from embarking, but can attack using the standard rules for assaulting buildings on page 93. This restriction is partly due to a FAQ removing the building status from battlements, even though it is clear that the battlement was meant to have access to the multiple structured rules. it was within the multiple structured rules that you would find permission to assault from one part of a building to another and how to resolve this action. Seeing this is a rule in the subsection of buildings, and battlements are no longer buildings, you are denied permission to use it... sorry.

Also, page 95 holds unique permissions and instructions on how jump units embark into/onto battlements. Those could be an interesting debate in a time when I am not so tired, because the rules for flying monstrous creatures are worded interesting when it comes to treating these models as jump models. It technically wouldn't have had permission to embark into the battlement even if gliding, as the gliding rules do not state we treat Flying monstrous creatures as Jump units for the purpose of embarking. This means the rules for buildings, which are unique to jump/jet-pack units, would not be applied to this situation as it is still a flying monstrous creature as far as the rules are concerned.

All moot though: Battlements are not buildings anymore so you can simply 'move' onto it like any other terrain so I guess the FAQ taketh, the FAQ giveth...

The rulebook states that battlements are occupied, and that they are part of the building. The FAQ removes the implication that they are a separately targetable part of the building.

Ergo, if there's a unit up there, then the battlements are occupied, and if the battlements are occupied, then the building cannot be said to be unoccupied, and is in fact partially occupied (even though there is no embarked unit).

Blast away, RaW, or at least RaW enough - the rules are not very well written, leaving ambiguity, but why go with the silly interpretation when a reasonable one is at hand?

And the notion that you cannot attack the building while models are occupying just the roof is really nonsense given that there three rules for damaging models on the battlement via attacking the building. I can only throw grenades onto the roof if there's someone inside, apparently helping them over the edge? Please. IMO, the rules are written to prevent you from making assaults and attacks not on the enemy - this situation simply doesn't qualify.

Pyrian wrote:
...and if the battlements are occupied, then the building cannot be said to be unoccupied, and is in fact partially occupied (even though there is no embarked unit).

There are no rules for 'partially occupied buildings'. The building is either occupied, or it isn't.

A building with battlements is a multi-part building. That means that each part is treated as a separate building (except for the battlements, which the FAQ 'clarifies' are a separate part, but not actually a building). So if one part of the multi-part building is occupied, only that part of the multipart building is occupied, because each part is a separate building.

In the case of, say, a Bastion with models only on the roof, this means that the main part of the bastion can not be attacked, as it is unoccupied, and is a separate buidling to the part that is occupied. And the battlements can't be attacked, because for some inexplicable reason that flies in the face of the rules as written in the rulebook, they're not considered to be a building.

Rorschach9 wrote:
In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

There doesn't need to be a mechanism. Everything under the template is hit. So if you have a (hover mode) flyer over a unit on top of a building you could potentially hit all three of them with a single shot. The "only on the same level as the template" rule ONLY applies to multi-level ruins. In every other situation you look from directly above and everything under it, no matter how far under it, takes a hit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

There doesn't need to be a mechanism. Everything under the template is hit. So if you have a (hover mode) flyer over a unit on top of a building you could potentially hit all three of them with a single shot. The "only on the same level as the template" rule ONLY applies to multi-level ruins. In every other situation you look from directly above and everything under it, no matter how far under it, takes a hit.

First - your scenario is not possible (you cannot have a flyer over a unit to begin with)

Second - How would you apply the hit from the blast to an unoccupied building (as the building below the battlements is, in the described scenario, unoccupied)? What is the mechanism for that? A page reference from the rules should suffice.

I don't know how much you value the GW staff's word on the rules but the general consensus is that a scattered hit onto the building, occupied or not would be resolved as a hit.

Rorschach9 wrote:
First - your scenario is not possible (you cannot have a flyer over a unit to begin with)

You might want to have a look at 'Flyers and Other Models' on page 80 of the rulebook...

Second - How would you apply the hit from the blast to an unoccupied building...

You can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

smithy12262 wrote:

I don't know how much you value the GW staff's word on the rules...

No more than anyone else's, since non-studio staff have non special insight into or training in the rules. They just go off their own understanding of the rules like the rest of us do.

 insaniak wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
First - your scenario is not possible (you cannot have a flyer over a unit to begin with)

You might want to have a look at 'Flyers and Other Models' on page 80 of the rulebook...

Fair enough (I've honestly never seen anyone end a fliers move over another model so that is something that's easily forgotten tbh), however .. doesn't change the fact that;

Second - How would you apply the hit from the blast to an unoccupied building...

You can't.

My point entirely. Peregrine seems to be arguing that by placing a blast marker on top of the unit on a battlement on top of a building, you are also (somehow) "hitting the building". Fine, you hit the building .. but it does nothing (which has been the point from the OP on really. There is nothing that happens to the unoccupied building, so hitting it or not is frankly entirely irrelevant)

smithy12262 wrote:

I don't know how much you value the GW staff's word on the rules...

No more than anyone else's, since non-studio staff have non special insight into or training in the rules. They just go off their own understanding of the rules like the rest of us do.

Yup. I've had GW Staff (storefront staff) at 3 different stores give a different ruling on the same rule in the recent past. They know as much as any of the rest of us as far as the rules go.

I hate these rules as well, the wording is a jumbled mess IMHO.

Personally the best thing you can do is embark in the building and instantly charge the models on top. There is no restriction on charging the same turn you embark, so just get as close as possible as fast as possible and murder the guys on top.

Rorschach9 wrote:
My point entirely. Peregrine seems to be arguing that by placing a blast marker on top of the unit on a battlement on top of a building, you are also (somehow) "hitting the building". Fine, you hit the building .. but it does nothing (which has been the point from the OP on really. There is nothing that happens to the unoccupied building, so hitting it or not is frankly entirely irrelevant)

Perhaps a rules citation is in order. Show where nothing happens. The rule says you cannot shoot or assault, it never mentions that no damage can be applied if it is not occupied.

*points back to his long post*

Putting side the fact I have yet to see a profile and unit type, indicating that the building is a model in it's own right and therefore can generate hits via the Template weapon rules, we sill have a massive problem that is being ignored: How do we resolve the hits generated?

The rules informing us how these hits would be resolved against buildings are all designed to apply only to occupied buildings; the very damage generated requires an embarked unit in order to be resolved. This includes the very rules designed for when and how a template weapon hit's a building, informing us to resolve damage against the unit inside and then consider a hit against the building as a secondary effect. The rules for resolving any damage generated by that hit requires us to be able to resolve them completely or partially against an embarked unit. Even in the two cases on the building damage charts that do not inflict additional damage on the embarked unit still require the primary damage to be inflicted against the embarked unit. So even if we accept that a unique terrain piece can be considered 'hit' by the general Template rules, the rules telling us what to do with that hit require the building to be occupied.

If you think this is in error, point me to the page which tells us how to resolve hits against unoccupied buildings.

Id say roll on the building dmg chart and ignore any result that says "do x hits at x str to the unit inside"

What gives you permission to ignore results rolled on said table?
While we are at it, where are you getting permission to half apply a rule in the first place?

To get permission to roll on the building damage table in the first place, requires evoking not one but two rules prior. Both of these rules require some action to be carry out against the unit inside the building before you can continue. If we where to simply ignore any rule which involves the embarked unit then we have zero rules left as to how to resolve this damage because we would also have to discard the rules giving us permission to continue.

As I mentioned before:
I hate these rules and if you are willing to house-rule them to be different I am more then willing to listen when it comes to the table top. However my bias against these rules does not give me permission to ignore them completely at a whim. More so when discussing what these rules actually tell us to do, with rules on this forum telling us not to try and pass our house rules off as actual rules. Unless someone can provide a rule giving us permission to half apply other rules, then we can not accept this as a legal solution.

Rules as written:
It is very clear that the only way to resolve a hit against a building is if it is occupied to begin with.

Fragile wrote:
Perhaps a rules citation is in order. Show where nothing happens. The rule says you cannot shoot or assault, it never mentions that no damage can be applied if it is not occupied.

That's the wrong way around.

You're only given permission to attack occupied buildings. In [i]that[i] situation, you are told to treat them like a transport vehicle.

No mechanism is provided within the rules for applying damage to an unoccupied building. So no, it doesn't say that no damage is applied... there is simply no way to apply that damage.

There are no rules anywhere saying to do what i proposed.

You asked how i would do it, and i answered. That is all.

Understandable, I did as how to resolve the hits generated. Allow me to elaborate that I was meaning for answers to this question to have rule based support. I was seriously trying to figure out how the group which proposes 'Unoccupied buildings are hit' plan to resolve the damage these hits would create. Given that members from this group have posted as if they are stating solid rule-backed that unoccupied buildings can be hit, and therefore the damage resolved, I am very curious as to what rules they are using to get to this conclusion. I am still waiting for them to provide me with that information, and probably will for a long while because I have devoured these rules over many different occurrences and know very well no such permission exists.

Sorry if you got caught up in all of that, your answer was How I Would Play It and therefore not flawed but I was hoping for a Rule as Written answer.

This is a non-issue.

If a blast scatters onto an unoccupied buiding, the building is hit. Then, you roll for armor penetration. Then, you roll on the building damage table. Then, you apply the result. If you get hung up on the fact there there is no unit unside of the building to suffer wounds, then take a deep breath and remember that 40k does not run on not C++.

How do we know that it is ok to hit a building? Page 3, Blasts & Large Blasts, paragraph 5. Now, you probably peed a little when you saw that the quoted section says 'unit.' You might even have bitten you tongue in your wild urge to scream out that buildings are not defined as units in the book. To solve your issue with resolving complex and difficult rule interactions with reason, I will point out another one:

The quoted paragraph says that units are only hit if their base is under the blast marker. Vehicles don't have bases, so they must not be able to be hit by blast markers - by RAW. You can dig for an exception and you will find yourself at page 73 Blast Weapons. But, you will notice that paragraph only makes an exception to the base requirement in the case of multiple blasts, not for situations where only one blast template is fired by a weapon. RAW.

Now, you may be able to find some lonely rule nugget hidden away somewhere that makes my example work as it shold, as it was designed, and as everyone who plays actually plays it. But, the point is that we all know that the rules are imperfect. My example, like this thread, is a ridiculous waste of time and energy. I find the technicalities that are being cited to be just as unconvincing as those that justify my example. If a blast markers scatters onto a building, then it hits the building. Unless you also think that single blast templates can't hit vehicles...

Also, keep in mind that ambiguity and gaps are the norm rather than the exception in GW rules, so HIWPI and RAW are not always as separate as people who like to throw those terms around assume them to be.

Edit:
When I say 'you,' I am not actually referring to any one person and my language is all in jest (something has to keep such a silly topic interesting)

House rules and other How I Would Play It is more then understandable on the table. The rules for terrain and building even states that elements and features of terrain need to be negotiated on during deployment of said terrain pieces, so the players are even required to talk these things over. I would even encourage negotiation every time when it comes to buildings, so they do work far better then what is written or more dynamically to the battle you wish to narrate. This is because they have a few issues that need to be ironed out, like other terrain rules, and probably why the players are encouraged by the rules to do so.

However, this forum is not the table top and the guide line is to discuss Rules as they are Written.

One of the funs of such discussions is learning the finer details of how rules do interact in this game. Those who partake in such things, whom would state this forum exists to do so, do not consider it a waste of time and energy to discuss these things. Sometimes learning the broken and wonky results that can occur is some of the fun and those whom post here likely have their own favorite incidences of when these things occur. There is a long list of broken rules that I have encountered, duel used terminology that makes interpretation near impossible and physic distorting conclusion to sometimes even mundane rule clashes that I will probably never forget.

So, should we continue to discuss the rules as written, or leave it with the best argument being 'House Rules for buildings make sense?'

Rapture wrote:
How do we know that it is ok to hit a building? Page 3, Blasts & Large Blasts, paragraph 5. Now, you probably peed a little when you saw that the quoted section says 'unit.'....

And that's where this interpretation comes to a screaming halt, because buildings are not units.

We are only given a mechanism for resolving damage against buildings when they are occupied.

The quoted paragraph says that units are only hit if their base is under the blast marker. Vehicles don't have bases, so they must not be able to be hit by blast markers - by RAW. You can dig for an exception and you will find yourself at page 73 Blast Weapons. But, you will notice that paragraph only makes an exception to the base requirement in the case of multiple blasts, not for situations where only one blast template is fired by a weapon. RAW.

Um, the Blast rules on page 73 quite clearly state that the vehicle is hit if the blast winds up over the vehicle or its base.

But I'm not seeing the connection here anyway. Even if blasts and vehicles turned out to be broken, that wouldn't have any effect on whether or not you can attack an unoccupied building..

But, the point is that we all know that the rules are imperfect.

That's one of the very reasons that we discuss them here, so people know about these imperfections and aren't as likely to be caught by surprise by them on the table top.



For what it's worth, HIWPI in this situation is by the RAW. Given the separation between parts of a multipart building for damage resolution, I would borrow from the ruins rules and only have the blast affect the 'level' that it is targeted at. Not RAW, but in keeping with how I perceive the spirit of the rules in this situation.

Although given my current self-imposed ban on playing with fortifications until GW gets around to finishing their rules, not likely to actually be an issue in games I play...

My 'interpretation' cannot come to a screaching halt because it is not an interpretation. People are being overly RAW-ish regarding blast markers so I simply did the exact same thing. The only other thing I posted was a rational solution that fills the obvious gap in the rules with the only answer that lines up with the rules that surround the gap - no interpretation required.

insaniak wrote:
Um, the Blast rules on page 73 quite clearly state that the vehicle is hit if the blast winds up over the vehicle or its base.

But I'm not seeing the connection here anyway. Even if blasts and vehicles turned out to be broken, that wouldn't have any effect on whether or not you can attack an unoccupied building..

Do they say that, or did you just make that up? Maybe I am just reading past it. If so, let me know.

The point of the example is that RAW for blasts is broken in a way that does not make sense. This results in reasonable people filling in the gap. The reason this doesn't ever cause an issue is because there is no ambiguity - everyone agrees that blasts hit what they land on top of. We could build a 10 page thread discussing the nuances of the gap, but we don't because the appropriate way to plaw is so painfully obvious.

Here, we have a very similar situation, but people are arguing that blasts should not hit what they land on top of. This is where the example comes back into relevance as no reasonable person can argue that blasts should hit what they land on top of but then argue that they should not hit what they land on top of.

I appreciate the idea of an academic discussion, but this is right up there with 'models don't have eyes so they can't shoot' or, like my ridiculous example, arguing that single fire blast weapons can't hit vehicles without a base.

Rapture wrote:
Do they say that, or did you just make that up? Maybe I am just reading past it. If so, let me know.

No, fair enough, that was from the multiple blasts bit. It's still irrelevant, though, since one rule being broken and requiring a house rule still doesn't affect how another separate rule works.

The point of the example is that RAW for blasts is broken in a way that does not make sense. This results in reasonable people filling in the gap. The reason this doesn't ever cause an issue is because the is no ambiguity - everyone agrees that blasts hit what they land on top of.

Here, we have a very similar situation, but people are arguing that blasts should not hit what they land on top of. This is where the example comes back into relevance as no reasonable person can argue that blasts should hit what they land on top of but then argue that they should not hit what they land on top of.

Except that they're not really comparable situations.

In the case of vehicles, we have an established procedure that sensibly covers blasts - where other models use their base, vehicles use their hull. So it's not a big leap to assume to you use the outline of the vehicle instead of a base for blasts, especially when they even spell that out for multiple blasts.

In the case of the building, we have an established procedure that only ever allows you to attack an occupied building. So it's much more of a stretch to assume that empty buildings should suffer collateral damage from blasts...

This isn't an obvious oversight like the models without eyes issue... It's painfully obvious that models without eyes are still supposed to be able to shoot. It's nowhere near as obvious if you should be able to accidentally damage empty buildings when you can't target them deliberately.

 insaniak wrote:
So it's much more of a stretch to assume that empty buildings should suffer collateral damage from blasts...

It isn't that much of a stretch because you have a very similar situation with friendly units. You can't attack them, but if a blast template happens to end up on top of them they take the hits just like an enemy unit.

Again, the point of my example is that people read assumptions into the blast rules. The assumption is that thing that a blast marker lands on gets hit. Things that get hit by blasts might, depending on dice, suffer damage.

Assuming that vacant buildings get hit by blasts when the rules don't explicitly is no different than assuming that vehicles get hit by blasts when the rules don't explicitly state it.

Anyone prepared to argue this should be prepared for the gamiest rules lawyer arguments in return - because that is exactly what this argument is.

Where, exactly, does it say that an unoccupied building cannot be damaged/hit?

I see that we only have permission to attack occupied buildings, but in this case the building is not being attacked, only effected by an attack on another unit.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Where, exactly, does it say that an unoccupied building cannot be damaged/hit?

It doesn't. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the rules don't say that they can be damaged.

I see that we only have permission to attack occupied buildings, but in this case the building is not being attacked, only effected by an attack on another unit.

OK. So how do you resolve the damage?

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Where, exactly, does it say that an unoccupied building cannot be damaged/hit?

It doesn't. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the rules don't say that they can be damaged.

I see that we only have permission to attack occupied buildings, but in this case the building is not being attacked, only effected by an attack on another unit.

OK. So how do you resolve the damage?

The same as you would if the building was occupied. There is no difference.

@Jinx.

By your interpretation there, the rule on page 94 that the building takes a hit from the template weapon is ignored ? The building is treated as a vehicle, how do you resolve a template hit vs a vehicle?

Fragile wrote:
The same as you would if the building was occupied. There is no difference.

But those are rules for attacking occupied buildings. Where are you seeing permission to use those rules to resolve damage to an unoccupied building?

The same place you have permission to resolve any hit vs a Transport vehicle.

Nothing in the rules says they cannot be hurt by a scattered blast because they are unoccupied. They are treated like a vehicle, with the noted exceptions. Immunity to weapons is not one of them.

Fragile wrote:
The same place you have permission to resolve any hit vs a Transport vehicle.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Can you please provide an actual rules reference that says to resolve damage against unoccupied buildings as if they are transport vehicles?

Nothing in the rules says they cannot be hurt by a scattered blast because they are unoccupied.

Nothing in the rules says they can not be destroyed by one of the players performing a rain dance, either.

That's not how the rules work.

They are treated like a vehicle, with the noted exceptions. Immunity to weapons is not one of them.

They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

You have a hit, this is determined via the Blast/Template weapons rules and they tell us anything under the Marker/Template is hit, a hit gets resolved per the rules for attacking buildings.

You are only given permission to attack an occupied building, but you are not told an unoccupied building cannot get hit.

By resolving the hit you are breaking no rules.

By not resolving the hit you are breaking 2(the Blast/Template rules stating that the building is hit, and then the attacking buildings rule thaa tells you what to do when a building is hit).

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The same place you have permission to resolve any hit vs a Transport vehicle.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Can you please provide an actual rules reference that says to resolve damage against unoccupied buildings as if they are transport vehicles?

Nothing in the rules says they cannot be hurt by a scattered blast because they are unoccupied.

Nothing in the rules says they can not be destroyed by one of the players performing a rain dance, either.

That's not how the rules work.

They are treated like a vehicle, with the noted exceptions. Immunity to weapons is not one of them.

They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

Im sorry, can you post that page please? I dont see a "only when they are occupied" on any of the rules except for shooting and charging.

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

Im sorry, can you post that page please? I dont see a "only when they are occupied" on any of the rules except for shooting and charging.

It is in the building rules by virtue of telling you when you are shooting at them or assaulting them they are treated like a vehicle.

Got a page and Graph that says they are treated like a vehicle the rest of the time?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

Im sorry, can you post that page please? I dont see a "only when they are occupied" on any of the rules except for shooting and charging.

It is in the building rules by virtue of telling you when you are shooting at them or assaulting them they are treated like a vehicle.

Got a page and Graph that says they are treated like a vehicle the rest of the time?

The one that says "Building of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference being Buildings can not move, and units from both sides may go inside them"

The rules do say that you cannot Attack a Unoccupied building though, but the rule book also says that any blast templates cant be fired on friendly units. Yet a blast template will still wound Friendly units if it scatters over them. And this should be used for anything on the battle field that does have the ability to be wounded/destroyed. like buildings. I dont actualy think it would bring around a massive difference either way to be fair. having buildings crumble to dust from a scatterd template adds a bit more dynamic play to the game though.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
The rules do say that you cannot Attack a Unoccupied building though,

And here is the flaw in your argument...

"The rules don't say I can't!"

If you use this as an argument, your argument is false.

The rules don't say I can't place my vehicles back on the board after they have exploded, but that doesn't mean we are allowed to do it.

The rules are a permissive ruleset: It means we are only allowed to do things that the rules expressly allow us to do. We are not allowed to do anything else.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
The one that says "Building of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference being Buildings can not move, and units from both sides may go inside them"

Right... so buildings use aspects of the transport vehicle rules, as detailed in the Building section.

The only place they tell us to resolve damage against the building as if it were a vehicle is in a section that only specifies permission to attack an occupied building.

Nowhere are we told that we can apply damage to buildings in any other situation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
By not resolving the hit you are breaking 2(the Blast/Template rules stating that the building is hit,...

So when the blast winds up over a ruin, you're breaking rules by not resolving damage against the ruin?

 insaniak wrote:
Nowhere are we told that we can apply damage to buildings in any other situation.

You're assuming that the one sentence granting permission to attack an occupied building means that the entire section following that sentence applies only to situations involving occupied buildings. Instead, it just says "when shooting at a building". If you find yourself shooting at a building, no matter how it happened, you follow the specified rules for shooting at it. If a building suffers a glancing or penetrating hit you apply the damage result, no matter how that glancing or penetrating hit was obtained (for example, a psychic power that causes a penetrating hit without rolling against the building's AV). All you need to do to make it work is recognize an implied "if any" following all references to "the unit inside"

The only question here is whether a blast template landing on top of a building counts as "attacking" it. And here we have a situation very similar to blast weapons scattering onto units you aren't allowed to attack (and note that the blast weapon rules specify that "the unit" takes the hits without ever giving any hint that they're now talking about the unit the blast template landed on, not the original target of the shot). In that situation the resolution is simple: you aren't allowed to target a friendly unit with an attack, but if you happen to hit one you resolve the hits just like you would against a legal target. Same with buildings, IMO.

 Peregrine wrote:
Instead, it just says "when shooting at a building".

Which you're only given permission to do if the building is occupied.

If you shot at something else, and the blast winds up on top of the building, you weren't shooting at the building.

 insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
By not resolving the hit you are breaking 2(the Blast/Template rules stating that the building is hit,...

So when the blast winds up over a ruin, you're breaking rules by not resolving damage against the ruin?

Apples and Oranges; you have no rules for Hits and damage on Ruins. You do have rules for them on buildings

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Apples and Oranges; you have no rules for Hits and damage on Ruins. You do have rules for them on buildings

No, you have rules for them on occupied buildings.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Apples and Oranges; you have no rules for Hits and damage on Ruins. You do have rules for them on buildings

No, you have rules for them on occupied buildings.

No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

You use the same logical conclusion for Invulnerable saves on vehicles

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

How do you resolve hits against vehicles or other models that are not targeted?

All the rules assume you are targeting the unit, Blast/Template gives you rules for hitting which allows for damage against models you have not targeted(following the normal rules for hitting)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

How do you resolve hits against vehicles or other models that are not targeted?

All the rules assume you are targeting the unit, Blast/Template gives you rules for hitting which allows for damage against models you have not targeted(following the normal rules for hitting)

Buildings are not models... They are terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

How do you resolve hits against vehicles or other models that are not targeted?

All the rules assume you are targeting the unit, Blast/Template gives you rules for hitting which allows for damage against models you have not targeted(following the normal rules for hitting)

Buildings are not models... They are terrain.

Terrain that can be shot, assaulted and partially destroyed. As such, you can resolve any hits against them without breaking any rules.

Fragile wrote:
Terrain that can be shot, assaulted and partially destroyed...

...under one specific condition.

Your equating effects that have no bearing.


This is no different than shooting a blast weapon at a Land Raider and having it scatter on the Rhino out of LOS behind it. You do not have permission to shoot the Rhino due to no LOS, but you resolve the effects regardless.

Occupied or Unoccupied has nothing to do with resolving hits, only with targeting.

Fragile wrote:
This is no different than shooting a blast weapon at a Land Raider and having it scatter on the Rhino out of LOS behind it. You do not have permission to shoot the Rhino due to no LOS, but you resolve the effects regardless.

Yes, you do. Because the rules tell you to, and because there is a mechanism for damaging units.

There is no such mechanism for damaging unoccupied buildings. So we either have to assume that no damage is applied, or we assume that damage is applied, but have no legal way to resolve it.

You apply it like a vehicle, since the rules say that buildings use the vehicle rules, with the noted exceptions.

Fragile wrote:
You apply it like a vehicle, since the rules say that buildings use the vehicle rules, with the noted exceptions.

Except they don't. They say that they use aspects of the vehicle rules, and then go on to explain what that means.

 insaniak wrote:
and then go on to explain what that means.

Do tell...

 insaniak wrote:
There is no such mechanism for damaging unoccupied buildings.

This is only the case if you assume that "you may shoot at occupied buildings" is the same as "the only way a building can be damaged is if it is occupied". The first paragraph gives you permission to target a building under certain circumstances, the second paragraph tells you how to resolve damage against a building. There is no statement limiting when you can resolve that damage to the situation mentioned in the previous paragraph.

 Peregrine wrote:
...the second paragraph tells you how to resolve damage against a building.

That second paragraph starts out with 'When shooting at a building...' rather than 'When resolving damage against a building...'

 insaniak wrote:
That second paragraph starts out with 'When shooting at a building...' rather than 'When resolving damage against a building...

But note the absence of "occupied" in that sentence. It doesn't require that the building be occupied to resolve shooting against it, that restriction is only imposed at the "choose a target" step. Likewise for applying damage results. It says "if you get a penetrating hit do X", not "if you get a penetrating hit and the building is occupied do X". So if you have a situation which is an exception to the general rule of being unable to attack an empty building you still meet the conditions and follow the appropriate instructions. For example, if a rule says "every building on the table suffers a penetrating hit" you would follow the instructions for applying a penetrating hit to ALL buildings regardless of whether they are occupied or not.

The only question here is whether a blast template landing on a building counts as shooting at it, and IMO the answer is the same as blast templates landing on other targets that would be an illegal choice for a unit's shooting: you can't pick them when you declare the unit's target, but if the blast template happens to land on them you resolve the hits as if you are attacking a legal target.

 Peregrine wrote:
But note the absence of "occupied" in that sentence.

They already told us in the previous paragraph that it has to be occupied. No need to repeat it every single time.

The only time you are given permission to attack the building is when it is occupied. The only way you are given a mechanic to apply damage to a building is when you attack it. There is nothing in the building rules that suggests that collateral damage from an attack against something else can be applied to the building.

The only question here is whether a blast template landing on a building counts as shooting at it,

With the answer being 'no'. If your target was something other than the building, that target was what you were shooting at. You just happened to hit the building instead.

For shooting at anything else, that's not a problem, because the blast rules allow you to apply damage to whatever is under the blast marker. For an unoccupied building, it is a problem, because there is no way to apply that damage.

I have been sitting back as I have said my say in the matter, the rules do not function as they require the building to be occupied, but there is one additional thing I want to throw onto the fire while it is crackling away:

Insaniak, how do we resolve attacks against the Vengeance Weapon Battery?

For those of you whom do not understand what this question is getting at, allow me to give you some background. Not to long ago Game Workshop decided to expand on it's sale of fortifications by releasing a few additional pieces. One of these pieces was the Vengeance Weapon Battery, a specialized fortification built around the idea of an automatic gun platform. To show this unique ability, they gave the building a capacity of 0 and even made it impassable if I remember correctly, ensuring that it will never have a unit inside of it. However the rules still required the building to be occupied in order to fire the emplaced weapons or for the building to be targeted, so they gave some specific permissions outlining how combat with this thing works.

Specific permissions that, while granting the ability to shoot at the Vengeance Weapon Battery, do not inform us how we go about resolving the damage generated against this unoccupied building....

So, Insaniak; you are asserting that vehicles take no damage from Blast weapons that scatter on to them?

All the rules are for Shooting at Vehicles(as the target).

JinxDragon wrote:
Insaniak, how do we resolve attacks against the Vengeance Weapon Battery?

The same way you resolve what happens to battlements when the building under them suffers a total collapse, probably...

You resolve the attack as you would against any other vehicle.

Fragile,

So your answer is to discard the unique building damaging rules, which require the building to be occupied, and fall back on normal vehicle damage rules?

Insaniak and Jinx; How do you handle Blasts scattering on to vehicles?

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,

So your answer is to discard the unique building damaging rules, which require the building to be occupied, and fall back on normal vehicle damage rules?

My answer is to follow the rules as laid out under Attacking Buildings on pg 93. Please note the bolded second sentence.

Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle.

Your damage table is different, but ....

When shooting at a building, roll To Hit and for armour penetration normally

Uh oh. that "normally" word. Normally what ? Well, refer back to the bolded part about vehicles. This part applies to any scattered shot that would land on the building.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Insaniak and Jinx; How do you handle Blasts scattering on to vehicles?

Any model under the blast marker is hit by the blast.

Fragile wrote:

When shooting at a building, ...

.

... which the section immediately beforehand just explained can happen when the building is occupied, but nowhere is any indication given that it can happen at any other time.

You continue to try to apply 1 restriction to things that it does not apply to with no basis to do so.

I'm not applying a restriction at all. I'm simply not trying to carry out an action that the rules don't give you permission to carry out.

The rules clearly do. The shot is resolved as if shooting at a vehicle, there is no requirement for the building to be occupied or not to resolve the damage.

Fragile wrote:
The rules clearly do. The shot is resolved as if shooting at a vehicle, there is no requirement for the building to be occupied or not to resolve the damage.

The requirement for it to be occupied comes from the fact that you are only given permission to shoot at the building in the first place if it is occupied.

Yes, if you shoot at a building, you resolve the shot as if it were a vehicle. But you can only shoot at it when it is occupied, because no permission is given to do so otherwise.



Here's how I see this - GW could very easily have returned to the 2nd edition system for terrain, where any piece of terrain could be shot at and potentially destroyed. They didn't... they restricted it to buildings, and only when occupied. So why is that?

To my mind, it's because they didn't want to go back down the road of all terrain being damagable, but wanted players to be able to use buildings without them being invulnerable bunkers. So they included a mechanism for destroying a building with a unit in it, which isn't intended to be applied to unoccupied buildings because within that design requirement there is no need for it to affect unoccupied buildings. It's solely there to stop units from being able to hide in impenetrable boxes.


That may be way off base, of course. Start wondering why GW does what they do, and madness is sure to follow. But it makes sense to me, within the rules as they currently stand. YMMV.

That may be how you would play it, but, as you say, there is a mechanic for resolving damage against a building. There is a restriction on shooting or charging, but no listed restrictions on damaging a building. Therefore you have to resolve those hits as you have no permission or restriction to not do it.

Fragile wrote:
That may be how you would play it, but, as you say, there is a mechanic for resolving damage against a building.

... when it is occupied.

Therefore you have to resolve those hits as you have no permission or restriction to not do it.

So how do you resolve the hits when a blast winds up over a forest?

This is no different. The building is only treated as a vehicle when it is occupied. The rest of the time it is just terrain. Blasts have no effect on terrain.

 insaniak wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Insaniak and Jinx; How do you handle Blasts scattering on to vehicles?

Any model under the blast marker is hit by the blast.

That is not what the rules for Vehicles and Blasts says; it only talks about firing Blasts at vehicles.

It is a direct parallel with Buildings which only talk about shooting at buildings, which must be occupied to be shot at.

So if you are going to have Blasts that happen to scatter onto a vehicle cause damage per the blast rules, you must also apply that logic to buildings that happen to have a blast scatter onto them.

Template weapons and vehicles allow for ancillary hits.

My issue still has not been resolved: There are no mechanics to resolve the hits against unoccupied buildings.

Even if we ignore the many rule based sections that have been quoted, rules that would make it so the building doesn't get hit in the first place, we still can not resolve the hits generated. The standard method of resolving hits all contain instructions to lower a characteristic as part of the process and the instructions for damaging buildings do not deviate from these normal rules. The problem is that buildings do not have these characteristics, and even have a sentence stating this prevents them from being damaged or destroyed. Instead of lowering a characteristic found on the building, we are given instructions that involves creating wounds and allocating them to the unit inside of the building, in order to lower their characteristics instead.

So how do we resolve these wounds against an unoccupied building?

The side that is for applying these hits put forth a solution of using only the fragments which can be applied. While I do not have fault with the idea itself, it does solve the problem, we can not accept such a solution as 'legal' from the Rule as Written point of view. There is simply nothing in the Rule book telling us we have permission to apply a sixth of an individual rule. Nor are there any instructing informing us how we go about deciding what part of a rule can and can not be applied, and it is not unreasonable to request a rule as broad as 'decide when you want to apply parts of individual rules' to contain instructions on when it could be evoked.

We accept that the house rule of 'ignore all wounds generated' would be a very good house rule to have, it solves the problem put forth in this thread and a few other ones as well. However, as we have pointed out repetitively, this would still be a house rule and treating it as anything else does not make it 'legal.' Just because it is designed to to patch a hole that a good editor would of caught doesn't change the fact it is not a rule written by the actual people whom penned the rule book.

 insaniak wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Insaniak and Jinx; How do you handle Blasts scattering on to vehicles?

Any model under the blast marker is hit by the blast.

You just made that up. The rules do not say that. If you read the relevant rules you will find that multiple blasts can hit vehicles but single blasts cannot. Page 33 says that blasts hit bases that they are over and then page 73 only makes an exception to the base requirement in the case of multiple blasts.

RAW to the extreme - just like in the case of the completely rediculous argument that a blast scattering onto a building does not result in a hit. Anyone making this argument is exploiting gaps in the rules to the point that consistently applying their outrageous approach would make the game unplayable.

We all know how it works, so why is anyone wasting even a second of their life on this?

Rapture wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Insaniak and Jinx; How do you handle Blasts scattering on to vehicles?

Any model under the blast marker is hit by the blast.

You just made that up. The rules do not say that. If you read the relevant rules you will find that multiple blasts can hit vehicles but single blasts cannot. Page 33 says that blasts hit bases that they are over and then page 73 only makes an exception to the base requirement in the case of multiple blasts.

RAW to the extreme - just like in the case of the completely rediculous argument that a blast scattering onto a building does not result in a hit. Anyone making this argument is exploiting gaps in the rules to the point that consistently applying their outrageous approach would make the game unplayable.

We all know how it works, so why is anyone wasting even a second of their life on this?

Becase the rules donot give any mechanism for damaging terrain (Unless it is an occupied building), which is exactly what an unoccupied building is...

Rapture wrote:
You just made that up. The rules do not say that. If you read the relevant rules you will find that multiple blasts can hit vehicles but single blasts cannot. Page 33 says that blasts hit bases that they are over and then page 73 only makes an exception to the base requirement in the case of multiple blasts.

Yes, we covered that earlier. It's an obvious oversight in the vehicle rules.

The issue with buildings isn't quite so obvious, since the normal requirement for the building to be occupied in order to target it leaves doubt as to whether or not collateral damage should affect them when empty.

So that leaves it up to players to figure out the most likely intention of the rules... and to me, the most likely intention (as I just explained) is that we're only supposed to be able to damage occupied buildings.

Anyone making this argument is exploiting gaps in the rules to the point that consistently applying their outrageous approach would make the game unplayable.

I like hyperbole as much as the next 15 billion guys, but I have to admit I'm missing the part where a scattering blast marker not being able to damage a building makes the game unplayable. Or is a particularly exciting 'exploit'.

We all know how it works, so why is anyone wasting even a second of their life on this?

Because we don't know how it works, because the rules are unclear. Luckily, we have this handy forum for discussing areas of the rules that we find to be unclear...

The rules are also unclear regarding whether a single blast can hit a vehicle, but no one would entertain a thread about that because there is very clearly a best answer - just like there is in this case.

You honestly think that the intent of the rule writers would be that something that can be hit, damaged, and destroyed should be completely unaffected when an orbital bombardment scatters onto it?

Everyone knows what happens when a blast scatters onto something that that can be damaged. The thing is hit and the damage is resolved - this is why no one argues that single blasts can't hurt vehicles. Admitting that in the case of vehicles and then denying it in the case of buildings is inconsistent when there is a consistent, reasonable, and thematic alternative. There is no compelling argument for why unoccupied building cannot be damaged by scattering blasts other than what is an obvious hole in the rules.

 insaniak wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Anyone making this argument is exploiting gaps in the rules to the point that consistently applying their outrageous approach would make the game unplayable.

I like hyperbole as much as the next 15 billion guys, but I have to admit I'm missing the part where a scattering blast marker not being able to damage a building makes the game unplayable. Or is a particularly exciting 'exploit'.

Read it again if you are having trouble understanding. This one conclusion isn't a problem, the way that it was arrived at is. The rules are not designed in a way that anticipates people picking through them and reading them like a machine - especially when those people dismiss some gaps and then harp on others.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Becase the rules donot give any mechanism for damaging terrain (Unless it is an occupied building), which is exactly what an unoccupied building is...

They also don't give a mecanism for single blasts hitting vehicles. Do you resolve anything when a devil dog shoots at a land raider, or do you just tell your opponent that there is no mechanism and move on?

Rapture wrote:
You honestly think that the intent of the rule writers would be that something that can be hit, damaged, and destroyed should be completely unaffected when an orbital bombardment scatters onto it?

Yes, I honestly think that was their intention. That's why they wrote in an allowance to attack occupied buildings, rather than just allowing us to attack buildings all the time. I already explained why I think that a couple of posts back.

Everyone knows what happens when a blast scatters onto something that that can be damaged.

Indeed they do. The issue here is that when it is unoccupied, the building isn't something that can be damaged.

Admitting that in the case of vehicles and then denying it in the case of buildings is inconsistent when there is a consistent, reasonable, and thematic alternative

It's not inconsistent at all, because buildings and vehicles are different. If vehicles could only be damaged under certain, specific conditions, we would have a similar argument if we were talking about blasts scattering onto them outside of those conditions.

The thing is, GW have a long history of writing vastly different rules to cover two otherwise similar situations, because they write the rules to fit the way they want the game to function, and they don't always want those similar things to function identically... (For example, it wasn't so long ago that we had rulings for whether or not bikers could use two close combat weapons made on a purely arbitrary, codex-by-codex basis with no real explanation as to why they simply all couldn't do so...)

Between that, and the deliberate limiting of attacks to occupied buildings, it's not too much of a stretch to think that they wanted buldings to work differently to vehicles where blasts are concerned.

There is no compelling argument for why unoccupied building cannot be damaged by scattering blasts other than what is an obvious hole in the rules.

And that's where we're going to have to disagree... because what you're seeing as an 'obvious hole' I'm seeing as a deliberate design choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rapture wrote:
The rules are not designed in a way that anticipates people picking through them and reading them like a machine -

... which is an interesting statement, given that this appears to be what you are doing by insisting that if it works one way for vehicles, it must also work that way for buildings...


I'm not 'reading like a machine'... I'm reading the rules as they appear in the book, and where there is some perceived grey area, looking at what I think was the most likely intent of those rules in order to determine how to deal with that grey area. So while I think my interpretation here is the one that fits a strict RAW reading, I also very strongly believe that it matches the intent behind that RAW. If I didn't, I would be arguing for playing as the the building being damaged, regardless of what the RAW appears to say about it.

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Becase the rules donot give any mechanism for damaging terrain (Unless it is an occupied building), which is exactly what an unoccupied building is...

They also don't give a mecanism for single blasts hitting vehicles. Do you resolve anything when a devil dog shoots at a land raider, or do you just tell your opponent that there is no mechanism and move on?

Except they do give a mechanisim for single blasts hitting vehicles...

A vehicle is a model. (and usually a single model unit).

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker (see diagram)." (33)

The issue they have, DeathReaper, is that vehicles and buildings rarely have bases.

However; I do not see how one poorly written rule negates numerous others showing a very clear intent. Multiple rules are all written in such a way that only occupied buildings can take damage and this rule was pulled out as a counter to this pile-o-evidence. The side stating buildings can be damaged brought this rule up to prove that there was a clear oversight within the blast marker rules and how they effect vehicles. This is true, the oversight was very easily proven, but the existence of one oversight does not automatically prove the accusation that 'unoccupied buildings' is just another oversight.

The rules dont help confusion by adding. "Building dont have Hull points and cant be completely destroyed. they can however, be damaged to the point that it's impossible for anyone to enter them[u]"

Hinting at the fact they can be damaged unocupied. if you read into it that way. I will continue to play it as you cant target them directly due to being unocupied, but blast scatterd onto them will cause a roll on the building damage table. Just for personal preference and more dynamic gameplay.

 insaniak wrote:

There is no compelling argument for why unoccupied building cannot be damaged by scattering blasts other than what is an obvious hole in the rules.

And that's where we're going to have to disagree... because what you're seeing as an 'obvious hole' I'm seeing as a deliberate design choice.

Fair enough. But for me, RAI favoring invulnerability is always a bit of a stretch.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Becase the rules donot give any mechanism for damaging terrain (Unless it is an occupied building), which is exactly what an unoccupied building is...

They also don't give a mecanism for single blasts hitting vehicles. Do you resolve anything when a devil dog shoots at a land raider, or do you just tell your opponent that there is no mechanism and move on?

Except they do give a mechanisim for single blasts hitting vehicles...

A vehicle is a model. (and usually a single model unit).

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker (see diagram)." (33)

Do you mount your tanks on bases? There is no mechanism. RAW.

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Becase the rules donot give any mechanism for damaging terrain (Unless it is an occupied building), which is exactly what an unoccupied building is...

They also don't give a mecanism for single blasts hitting vehicles. Do you resolve anything when a devil dog shoots at a land raider, or do you just tell your opponent that there is no mechanism and move on?

Except they do give a mechanisim for single blasts hitting vehicles...

A vehicle is a model. (and usually a single model unit).

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker (see diagram)." (33)

Do you mount your tanks on bases? There is no mechanism. RAW.

In the case of vehicles, the hull is used in place of the base. (Page 71 tells us this is true).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Becase the rules donot give any mechanism for damaging terrain (Unless it is an occupied building), which is exactly what an unoccupied building is...

They also don't give a mecanism for single blasts hitting vehicles. Do you resolve anything when a devil dog shoots at a land raider, or do you just tell your opponent that there is no mechanism and move on?

Except they do give a mechanisim for single blasts hitting vehicles...

A vehicle is a model. (and usually a single model unit).

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker (see diagram)." (33)

Do you mount your tanks on bases? There is no mechanism. RAW.

In the case of vehicles, the hull is used in place of the base. (Page 71 tells us this is true).

That applies to measuring yes, show where that applies to blast marker resolution.

Rapture wrote:
Fair enough. But for me, RAI favoring invulnerability is always a bit of a stretch..

If we were talking about an enemy model, I would agree. But this is terrain, in a game where you can't normally damage terrain...

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Becase the rules donot give any mechanism for damaging terrain (Unless it is an occupied building), which is exactly what an unoccupied building is...

They also don't give a mecanism for single blasts hitting vehicles. Do you resolve anything when a devil dog shoots at a land raider, or do you just tell your opponent that there is no mechanism and move on?

Except they do give a mechanisim for single blasts hitting vehicles...

A vehicle is a model. (and usually a single model unit).

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker (see diagram)." (33)

Do you mount your tanks on bases? There is no mechanism. RAW.

In the case of vehicles, the hull is used in place of the base. (Page 71 tells us this is true).

That applies to measuring yes, show where that applies to blast marker resolution.

The blast marker is a way to figure out who is hit by seeing (Measuring) if the base is within the blast marker circle.

So you have no rule? Literal interpretation often fails with GW and requires leaps of logic like you just did.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The blast marker is a way to figure out who is hit by seeing (Measuring) if the base is within the blast marker circle.

That is a pretty desperate argument. The reason that people are responding to you is because GW rules sometimes require something more than just the words that they consist of in order to function. Claiming that scattering onto a building doesn't work because the is no mechanism but then claiming that scattering onto a tank does when there is no mechanism is is being disengenous. Trying to craft that mechanism through strange abstractions is not helping.

Now, if you thing that the RAI is why building can't be damaged by scattering blasts, then that is something we can't convine to change your mind about. But, the RAW argument doesn't work.

There is a mechanism, I have cited it, stop ignoring it.

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
That may be how you would play it, but, as you say, there is a mechanic for resolving damage against a building.

... when it is occupied.

Therefore you have to resolve those hits as you have no permission or restriction to not do it.

So how do you resolve the hits when a blast winds up over a forest?

This is no different. The building is only treated as a vehicle when it is occupied. The rest of the time it is just terrain. Blasts have no effect on terrain.

This. I have not seen any compelling argument otherwise ( in four pages ).

Except for getting tagged by CSM and bored orks with " Da empra stynks! " I think empty buildings can remain unmolested.

Insaniak and others, thanks for the hashing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is a mechanism, I have cited it, stop ignoring it.

Please give the page where it says that models under a blast marker are hit by the blast weapon. I will save you some time - there isn't one.

Fragile wrote:
So you have no rule? Literal interpretation often fails with GW and requires leaps of logic like you just did.

I can see how you think that, but you missed page 6 (I did not cite page 6 until this post, this should clear it up for you).

Rapture wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is a mechanism, I have cited it, stop ignoring it.

Please give the page where it says that models under a blast marker are hit by the blast weapon. I will save you some time - there isn't one.

There is one, therefore your statement is incorrect.

You must not have read all of the rules for Blast markers and Template weapons on Page 6?

"A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template Remember that a model's base is counted as being part of the model itself, so ail a template has to do to cause a hit is to cover any part of its base" (6)

This covers models with bases and models such as vehicles that do not have bases...

 DeathReaper wrote:
You must not have read all of the rules for Blast markers and Template weapons on Page 6?

"A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template Remember that a model's base is counted as being part of the model itself, so ail a template has to do to cause a hit is to cover any part of its base" (6)

That rule is about templates. Blast markers are often referred to as "templates" in informal discussion, but they are not templates in the rules. Page 6 does not give any rules at all for determining which units are hit by blast markers. To find those rules you have to look at page 33, where it says that "the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker". So we learn two things here:

1) Blast markers have no effect on any model that does not have a base.

2) Blast markers can not inflict hits on any unit other than the one targeted by the firing unit. The rules say "THE unit", and the only unit specified prior to that point is the initial target for the attack.

I played a game of planet strike the day, a scenario where they are 4 battlements that must be destroyed for you to win. I wonder if RAI GW wants those AV14 no glancing, to be nearly immune to the firestorms or all the other extra weapons they add in?

Are there rules regarding a Necron death ray hitting the building ?(I checked the FAQ only)

I suppose you could sacrifice your own models embark inside kill whatever's on top then shoot at it.

They were distinct in previous editions, but there are places in 6th the rules use them interchangeably.

On page 6, for example, after it defines which one is which it says

Copies of these templates can be found in the reference section.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You must not have read all of the rules for Blast markers and Template weapons on Page 6?

"A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template Remember that a model's base is counted as being part of the model itself, so ail a template has to do to cause a hit is to cover any part of its base" (6)

That rule is about templates. Blast markers are often referred to as "templates" in informal discussion, but they are not templates in the rules. Page 6 does not give any rules at all for determining which units are hit by blast markers. To find those rules you have to look at page 33, where it says that "the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker". So we learn two things here:

1) Blast markers have no effect on any model that does not have a base.

2) Blast markers can not inflict hits on any unit other than the one targeted by the firing unit. The rules say "THE unit", and the only unit specified prior to that point is the initial target for the attack.

100% False. Page 6 does give rules for determining which units are hit by blast markers.

They use the word Templates on page 6 to mean the teardrop shaped template and the large and small blast markers.

Rig has the citation already. Remember in that section they are talking about "Warhammer 40,000 Uses a series of three different blast markers and templates" (6)

It then goes on to lost these 3 markers and templates. then it says "Copies of these templates" (6) referring to the three bulletpointed items they had just listed which are the teardrop shaped template and the large and small blast markers.

Ergo your argument has been proven false.