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.

So buildings count as empty transports (unless they count as impassable terrain)

So can I level a building in advance to deny my opponent the chance to occupy it?

It would be quite reasonable to be able to do so. The problem is this though:

Say you have a large building that can be occupied, and behind it is an enemy unit out of Los from your blast weapon. You cannot fire at the unit, but if you could fire at the building using the vehicle rules, you just have to place the middle hole above the building. This means you can place the whole at the edge of the building, with a part of the blast able to cover the "hidden" squad.

This is many levels of wrong.
But saying "you cannot fire at an empty building is also wrong. Besides, the above problem is really an issue even if the building was occupied by a third unit, where you legaly and perfectly can target it, and thus still get "hidden" squads with the blast marker.

The most sensible solution to me would be the house rule we use.

Unless the firing unit is on a hill or something, it probably cannot draw Los to the building roof, so we always assume that thet blas hole has to be in base contact with the side of the building closest to the firer,representing the blast hiting the face of the bulding.
Also we halve all scatter ranges,since this both makes scattering behind the bulding all but impossible (shooting plasma cannons at an arc is a skill few marines, if any, possess ) and at the same time represents the big vertical target that is the buildings face, you cannot really miss by that much when trying to shoot a frakking building!

But the above are just that, house rules.

What would the official rules say on this?

The rules only say you can fire at occupied buildings (rulebook pg 79), so no firing at unoccupied buildings is allowed.

That's the problem, it says what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do.

MoRmEnGiL wrote:That's the problem, it says what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do.

Ummm, that's how the rules work. They tell you what you're allowed to do and therefore you're allowed to do it.

The "rules don't say I can't" is one of the biggest logical fallacies there is. The rules don't say I can't pick up your models and remove them from the table when I want to so I can. The rules don't say I can't smash your models into a million pieces so I can. Etc, etc, etc.

yakface wrote:

MoRmEnGiL wrote:That's the problem, it says what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do.

Ummm, that's how the rules work. They tell you what you're allowed to do and therefore you're allowed to do it.

The "rules don't say I can't" is one of the biggest logical fallacies there is. The rules don't say I can't pick up your models and remove them from the table when I want to so I can. The rules don't say I can't smash your models into a million pieces so I can. Etc, etc, etc.

Yakface is, as ever, correct. No shooting at Unoccupied buildings because the rules do not say you can.

MoRmEnGiL wrote:That's the problem, it says what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do.

This rules set works under the idea that you can't do something unless a rule tells you that you can.

Otherwise they would have to write a rule about every minor detail. An extreme example would be "the rule book doesn't say if I dance around the table 3 times I win automatically, so therefore I can."

So, we must assume that you can only shoot at what the rules tells us what we can shoot at. In this case it is only an 'occupied' building.

Yeah you're probably right.

We'll still stick to our house rules though, after all vindicators are siege tanks, on of their purposes was to level fortifications

I think it is clear that you cannot shoot empty buildings if you try to look at how the rules are worded all around.

I just wish they'd spent the ink to include an extra sentence in some cases, just saying NO YOU CANNOT DO THIS.

Would make things so much clearer and easier.

MoRmEnGiL wrote:Yeah you're probably right.

We'll still stick to our house rules though, after all vindicators are siege tanks, on of their purposes was to level fortifications

I think it is clear that you cannot shoot empty buildings if you try to look at how the rules are worded all around.

I just wish they'd spent the ink to include an extra sentence in some cases, just saying NO YOU CANNOT DO THIS.

Would make things so much clearer and easier.

Well yes and no. Obviously you'd like for things to be spelled out for you in this case, but for them to say NO YOU CAN'T DO THIS for every possibility of things you can do the rulebook would be infinitely large and then finding the answer you're looking for would be next to impossible.

What you have to understand is that the rules for ALL games work this way. They give you framework of things you CAN do (along with some restrictions within those permissions) and it is understood that you are only allowed to do things that the rules allow you to do.

For example the rules for Risk might say: 'You are allowed to move your pieces into an adjacent territory.' This lets you know how you are allowed to move your pieces. It isn't feasible for them to write stuff like: 'players cannot pick their pieces up and move them into any territory they like' because there are infinite things that players can do if you suddenly think that you're allowed to do anything not stated in the rules.

Well it is pretty obvious they cannot do this en masse. It wouldn't hurt though to add the sentence "If a building is not occupied you cannot shoot or assault it"

Because not all cases are te same. It makes no sense to argue that since rules do not prohibit it, you can try to steal an opponent's gun.

Some things though make much more sense and are not against the spirit of the game, which is all it's about isn't it?

EDIT: a "common sense" demotivator just came to mind, arguing that common sense in our days is so rare it's a superpower

If your opponent agrees (preferably ask before the game) that unoccupied buildings can be shot at, then go ahead and shoot at them.

As a house rule, I like it. Makes sense, especially in city fight.

We had a big cityfight a while ago, and had the house rule that any blast template (we figured something without a blast template would just put a whole through the building, which might kill a vehicle but won't bother a wall as a rule) of strenght 7 or higher could damage a building, along with some secondary versions of the buildings to represent the situation. First hit would turn an intact building into a ruin with a 4+ cover save, the second would turn it into a crater.

Of course, some buildings are stronger than others. But it worked pretty well over all.

On page 77 and 78, the rules clearly state that buildings use aspects of transport vehicle rules and players can try to destroy them. Can you destroy an unoccupied transport vehicle? The paragraph that states "occupied building" must be read very carefully otherwise you could come to some seriously flawed conclusions. The purpose of the paragraph is to detail "The best way to kill enemy troops in a fortified position". The second sentence included the word "occupied" merely to emphasize that the enemies you want to kill are in the building. The argument that the rulebook must state exactly what you can do is also flawed. The rulebook doesn't state many things that we as sensible players just assume is the logical thing to do. The rules do not say you can move your models with your hands or use a tape measure to measure distance.

Official, I'd play it as Yak outlined! In practice though...

I'd let my opponent shoot at empty buildings, but going so far as to aslo include otherwise hidden troops would be to far.

Also I'd likely say they could only shoot at buildings if they were not their race's. For example Imperial troops could not shoot at empty Imperial buildings, but their enemies could. (Just for fun and theme).

can you assault an empty building?

No, it's the same sentence that denies Shooting as well :

Page 79 wrote:Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle.

Augustus wrote:
Also I'd likely say they could only shoot at buildings if they were not their race's. For example Imperial troops could not shoot at empty Imperial buildings, but their enemies could. (Just for fun and theme).

As far as theme goes, isn't the Imperium exactly the kind of group that would rather destroy their own resources than allow their enemies to use them? I like the idea of destructible buildings, as it gives you a chance to deny your opponent some cover in an awesome way.

But I can't think of an instance where you wouldn't want to destroy a building, regardless of who built it, if destroying it hurts your enemy.

Just my $.02

Yeah I'm willing to bet the imperium would destroy an entire neighbourhood of buildings of their own, with their owners still inside along with their families, so that the tyranid hive rumoured to be arriving the day after tomorrow doesn't hide in it.

There are a lot of kinda stupid rules in 40k that I think need house rules. Like rolling for possessed BEFORE deployment, shooting at empty buildings and for me, fixing the los rules.

It is inconceivable to me to make converting minatures having an impact in game rather than pure aesthetics..

Not to hijack, but what LOS rules?

I think he means the ones that let you model for advantage, you know, just like EVERY OTHER EDITION OF 40K EVER

Skimmers bug me the most. Being at the altitude their base indicates ALL the time..it's really stupid if you ask me.

MoRmEnGiL wrote:Yeah I'm willing to bet the imperium would destroy an entire neighbourhood of buildings of their own, with their owners still inside along with their families, so that the tyranid hive rumoured to be arriving the day after tomorrow doesn't hide in it.

That really depends on what's in those buildings.

Otherwise, every battle would just be decided by bombing the planet, rather than sending in troops.


There are just too many resources and technologies that are in short supply and/or irreplacable. Destroying the infrastructure that supports them is a last resort, not something done 'just in case'...