| 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. |
|
 |
2009/08/16 22:16:08
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
|
Is this allowed under the rules? I know given buildings high AV it's probably not advisable, but it's nice to know in a pinch.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
2009/08/16 22:27:21
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
I don't know of any reason why not, but I do see a need for discussion with your opponent.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
|
2009/08/16 22:29:02
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
That is a very good question. The rules on page 78 state "Buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules", but those rules only concern the transport part, not the "vehicle" part. But it is not 100% clear as a lot of other interactions make it seem as if they are vehicles.
|
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/08/16 22:31:00
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail. 
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
|
|
|
2009/08/16 23:16:06
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller
|
I guess it is up to the players... I would say yes as all the parts to make a "Ram" are there...
|
2009's 1500 IG - 11/5/5 (W/L/D) |
|
|
|
|
2009/08/17 00:26:13
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
Sinewy Scourge
Long Island, New York, USA
|
Bottom of page 79 under attacking buildings says units can shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle. Units inside will be affected in the same way as units inside transport vehicles.
So the rules say you can attack a building, so you can ram one, but only if it is occupied.
|
I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire. The man who lies low and awaits developments usually comes off second best. - Erwin Rommel
"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
|
2009/08/17 03:07:40
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
Oh, GW, your lack of clarity has created a confusing situation, once again..... For a variety of realistic reasons, I would say you could, but then you would most likely also lose the vehicle. It is one thing to crunch a vehicle against your hull or under your treads, but it is another to ram a structure and have it come falling down on top of you, or drop your vehicle into the foundation.
RAW, no, I suppose, as ramming buildings are not covered in the rules, to my recollection. RAI? Yeah, I could see it being legitimate to ram a structure.
|
Just because anyone agrees with anyone, doesn't mean they are correct. Beware the thin line between what is "Correct" and what is "Popular." |
|
|
|
|
2009/08/17 03:11:23
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Of course you can ram buildings. You can shoot at them too.
|
|
|
|
|
2009/08/17 06:23:31
Subject: Ramming Buildings?
|
|
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
I rammed a building with a waveserpent once. It was hilarious.
|
Why did the berzerker cross the road?
Gwar! wrote:Willydstyle has it correct
Gwar! wrote:Yup you're absolutely right
New to the game and can't win? Read this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
