Switch Theme:

Targetting buildings, demolition, and blasts.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





So I've been reading the building/ruin rules in the new 5th book and want to make sure I'm clear on something.

Ugh, much as I hate to do it, a lame asci picture might help explain.

View is top down:

O = An ordinance firing vehicle (Russ, Vindicator, whatever). Does not have LOS to x but does have LOS to the building.
888 = An occupyable but currently empty building with only one floor.
2 = see question #2 below.
x = Enemy infantry. Theyre hiding behind the building but do not yet occupy it.

------O------



8888888888
8888888888
8888888888
8888888888
8882888888
---xxxx-----
---xxxx-----


So what do you guys think of the following questions:

1- Does a building have to be occupied to be targettable?

As a guard player I can think of plenty of times when I've had very little to shoot at on the first turn (because opponent deployed behind cover)... and I'd have been perfectly happy to have all my extra lascannon firepower start ripping down those annoying LOS-blocking buildings. If the building explodes, great, craters dont block LOS. If they wreck, at least the building is dangerous terrain now.

2- Would blast/ordinance treat a building like a vehicle hull in that you put the center of the marker over any part of the building?

So say at position #2 on the building in the diagram above. Not-very-coincidentally catching things skulking behind it in the blast. Things you ordinarily wouldnt even have LOS to. I'm sure you could imagine other instances (troops hiding around the corner of an alleyway for example) where the firer doesnt have LOS to the guys he wants to blast... but DOES have LOS to the building theyre skulking next to/behind/etc.

3-When a blast/ordinance center-hole scatters onto a building it'll take damage just like a vehicle whose hull got scattered onto, right?

4-When targetting troops in a ruin with blast/ord you need to declare the level you're targetting. Does the same apply to targetting an (as-yet) intact building?

Either way, I can imagine some strange issues. Shooting a 10 story tall building, targetting the ground floor, and putting the center hole on the back edge of the building to catch the guys behind it. I'm also imagining a big "U" shaped building. Targetting the ground floor but centering the blast on the back/inside in an unrealistic but rules-legal position.

5-- Would the Russ need LOS to the actual roof of the building to put the marker in position #2?

My understanding is that for vehicles (a Necron Monolith for example) you could put the center hole above anywhere on the hull, including the slope on the back side which cant even be seen

At any rate, Ive found the 5th edition building rules much improved... but they still probably couldve used more clarification. Please understand that 99% of the things I'm mentioning as examples I'd never actually do. It's more a case where I'm trying to get a discussion going about it and to see if my interpretation is solid. And know the rules well enough to protect myself from any rules lawyers who have less scruples than myself.

About the only thing I could see doing would be ripping down buildings with extra firepower as a Guard player... and that really makes fluff sense anyway. If they can hide behind it we can try to blast it down.

Thoughts? Am I accurate or did I miss anything in the book? Anyone have any idea if this stuff has been FAQed?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/07/22 06:42:46


 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA



1) Buildings may only be fired at if occupied. This is because the rules do not allow players to normally shoot at buildings. The rules for buildings add: "Units may shoot or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

So the rules only give you permission to fire at an occupied building.


2) Yes, you'd treat it just as a vehicle so you could place the center of the blast anywhere over the building.


3) I don't see why not.


4) No, because you only target the building as a whole. If you had divided the building up into differing sections that could each be occupied and destroyed separately and you had some sections directly on top of each other you might want to introduce a house rule about height vs. differing building sections, but that's for you to come up with based on your building collection.


5) No, you should be able to place the blast over any part of the building as long as its occupied. But remember if you end up hitting a unit behind the building it's going to get a cover save for being behind the building. Which in fluff-land could easily represent chunks of the building flying into some of the models cowering behind the building.





I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Y'know, I read through the section looking for a disqualifying "occupied" twice. And seems I missed it twice.

That's life for ya.
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA

Ivan wrote:Y'know, I read through the section looking for a disqualifying "occupied" twice. And seems I missed it twice.

That's life for ya.



That's because there isn't a disqualifier. Remember, you can only do things that the rules allow you to do. In this case the rules only give the option to fire at an occupied building so that is all you're allowed to do.



I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Smokin' Skorcha Driver






Utah

yakface wrote:

5) No, you should be able to place the blast over any part of the building as long as its occupied. But remember if you end up hitting a unit behind the building it's going to get a cover save for being behind the building. Which in fluff-land could easily represent chunks of the building flying into some of the models cowering behind the building.






If I recall correctly they probobly wont even get a cover save as long as you are a firing barrage weapon (anything with a Gxx" notation as well). Cover is determined from the center of the blast since it arcs overhead. Fun to be had by all.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: