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.

Recently a question came up about shooting at Unmanned buildings.

The Rules seem to state that you can shoot at buildings with enemies in them, but can you shoot at buildings without enemies? If you can not, how does this work for bastions and the like if theyre unmanned but are shooting at you with automated guns...?

There are no rules in the 40K rulebook that allow for shooting at unoccupied buildings.

Planetstrike I have no idea about, as I don't have the book.

You can shoot at unoccupied buildings, to destroy them. Buildings can be destroyed this is useful as low armour save enimies can hide in them, its especially useful in planetstrike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S Look in the BGB it has common AVs of buildings

Eldar Own wrote:You can shoot at unoccupied buildings, to destroy them. Buildings can be destroyed this is useful as low armour save enimies can hide in them, its especially useful in planetstrike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S Look in the BGB it has common AVs of buildings

No, you can shoot at buildings occupied by the enemy.

You are not allowed to shoot at empty buildings.

Eldar Own wrote:You can shoot at unoccupied buildings, to destroy them. Buildings can be destroyed this is useful as low armour save enimies can hide in them, its especially useful in planetstrike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S Look in the BGB it has common AVs of buildings

Actually, when you look at page 79 in the BRB, it doees give a chart of building armour. However, if you look at the paragraph under 'Attacking Buildings' 2nd paragraph, "Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

There is no rule allowing shooting at or assaulting an unoccupied building.

time wizard wrote:

Eldar Own wrote:You can shoot at unoccupied buildings, to destroy them. Buildings can be destroyed this is useful as low armour save enimies can hide in them, its especially useful in planetstrike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S Look in the BGB it has common AVs of buildings

Actually, when you look at page 79 in the BRB, it doees give a chart of building armour. However, if you look at the paragraph under 'Attacking Buildings' 2nd paragraph, "Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

There is no rule allowing shooting at or assaulting an unoccupied building.

Actually, there is.

"Buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference between them and actual vehicles is that they can't move, and units from either side can go in" (BRB, 78).

Because buildings count as vehicles, you can shoot at them, just as you can shoot at an unoccupied transport.

AGREE WITH GWAR!!!!

thebetter1 wrote:

time wizard wrote:

Eldar Own wrote:You can shoot at unoccupied buildings, to destroy them. Buildings can be destroyed this is useful as low armour save enimies can hide in them, its especially useful in planetstrike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S Look in the BGB it has common AVs of buildings

Actually, when you look at page 79 in the BRB, it doees give a chart of building armour. However, if you look at the paragraph under 'Attacking Buildings' 2nd paragraph, "Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

There is no rule allowing shooting at or assaulting an unoccupied building.

Actually, there is.

"Buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference between them and actual vehicles is that they can't move, and units from either side can go in" (BRB, 78).

Because buildings count as vehicles, you can shoot at them, just as you can shoot at an unoccupied transport.

But it clearly states that you can't, time wizard quoted the page.

...No, the quote Time Wizard brought was not one that explicitly stated he could not.

Without explicit evidence in the quote, we cannot assume that.

thebetter1 wrote:Because buildings count as vehicles,

They don't. They just use aspects of the vehicle rules.



That being said, I would have no problem with allowing models to attack unoccupied buildings as a house rule.

insaniak wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Because buildings count as vehicles,

They don't. They just use aspects of the vehicle rules.



That being said, I would have no problem with allowing models to attack unoccupied buildings as a house rule.

It's not fair to pick and choose which aspects of the vehicle rules buildings use without a rule to support it. If you want to play that way, I could tell you that you can't move into a building at all because it doesn't use the rules for carrying units. How could you possibly refute that with your logic?

thebetter1 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Because buildings count as vehicles,

They don't. They just use aspects of the vehicle rules.



That being said, I would have no problem with allowing models to attack unoccupied buildings as a house rule.

It's not fair to pick and choose which aspects of the vehicle rules buildings use without a rule to support it. If you want to play that way, I could tell you that you can't move into a building at all because it doesn't use the rules for carrying units. How could you possibly refute that with your logic?

Because the rule states that models from either side can go in. I thought that was pretty obvious, since it was in the rule that you posted. We don't need logic to deduce this, the rules tell us that models from either side can go into the buildings.

thebetter1 wrote:It's not fair to pick and choose which aspects of the vehicle rules buildings use without a rule to support it.

Indeed it's not. Which is why you use those aspects of the vehicle rules that the building rules tell you to use, rather than just picking and choosing for yourself.

If you want to play that way, I could tell you that you can't move into a building at all because it doesn't use the rules for carrying units. How could you possibly refute that with your logic?

By pointing out that the building rules have a big section detailing how troops can occupy buildings...?

Well, it doesn't matter that this example might not be perfect. I have plenty of others to pull.

Here's one. The building rules do not say to use the damage chart for vehicles. Where do we get this from? The vehicle rules. What gives us permission to do this? The line about buildings using aspects of vehicle rules.

And another one. Where in the building rules does it say that buildings get cover saves for being 50% obscured? It doesn't; the line about using aspects of the vehicle rules handles this for us.

Somehow, you guys are arguing that these scenarios can pull from the vehicle rules, but shooting at an unoccupied building cannot, even though absolutely nothing differentiates between these situations.

Errrm... thebetter1, seriously, do you even read the rulebook?

Gwar! wrote:Errrm... thebetter1, seriously, do you even read the rulebook?

I'm going to interpret this troll response as meaning that I must be correct, as you have not even attempted to show what makes me wrong.

thebetter1 wrote:Here's one. The building rules do not say to use the damage chart for vehicles.

Sorry, but I'm afraid they do.

Where do we get this from? The vehicle rules. What gives us permission to do this? The line about buildings using aspects of vehicle rules.

Specifically the line that says that you shoot at the building in exactly the same manner as if it were a vehicle.

Not just because it uses aspects of the vehicle rules. It uses this specific aspect of the vehicle rules, because it specifically says to do so.

And another one. Where in the building rules does it say that buildings get cover saves for being 50% obscured? It doesn't; the line about using aspects of the vehicle rules handles this for us.

Nope, again, the line about shooting at it as if it were a vehicle handles that as well.


The line about using aspects of the rules does not, in itself, do anything more than tell us that buildings use aspects of the vehicle rules.

To find out which aspects of the vehicle rules the building uses, you need rules that actually refer to specific aspects of the vehicle rules.

Somehow, you guys are arguing that these scenarios can pull from the vehicle rules, but shooting at an unoccupied building cannot, even though absolutely nothing differentiates between these situations.

What differentiates these situations is that the two you've just mentioned here are specifically addressed in the building rules. Shooting at an unoccupied building is not.

@thebetter1:

I totally agree with you on those two points, if the rulebook doesn't have specific rules for how to handle buildings in that situation. If the rulebook doesn't cover how to fire at buildings in cover, then you would use the vehicle rules, as it has aspects of a vehicle. Note that the rules don't say that they are vehicles except for...

However, under the heading "Attacking Buildings" it specifically says "Units may shoot at or assault occupied buildings as if they were vehicles" (emphasis mine). If they meant that all buildings could be shot at or assaulted then the rule would read "Units may shoot at or assault buildings as if they were vehicles."

Edit: Ninja'd by insaniak on the building rules!

Okay then, I still have more examples to throw at you, each stronger than the last.

Fire points. Buildings do not have a rule that says ranges must be measured from the fire points, and it does not reference the main vehicle rules either. The only way they are usable is by using the rule allowing them to take aspects of the vehicle rules, which you would be arbitrarily ignoring unless you allow unoccupied buildings to be shot at.

@thebetter1:

If this is the case (I have no rulebook handy) then this would fall under an aspect of being a vehicle. Again, this does not mean that it shares all the qualities of a vehicle, in fact, the rules specifically mention that you can shoot and assault occupied buildings.

As I stated in my last post, if GW wanted people to be able to shoot at and assault unoccupied buildings the rule would be worded "shoot at and assault buildings." Since the word occupied is present they have put a restriction on it, hence this is one of those times that it doesn't share an aspect with a vehicle.

thebetter1 wrote:Okay then, I still have more examples to throw at you, each stronger than the last.

Not so far.

Fire points. Buildings do not have a rule that says ranges must be measured from the fire points, and it does not reference the main vehicle rules either. The only way they are usable is by using the rule allowing them to take aspects of the vehicle rules, which you would be arbitrarily ignoring unless you allow unoccupied buildings to be shot at.

Again, the rules state they have fire points "just like vehicles".

thebetter1 wrote:Fire points. Buildings do not have a rule that says ranges must be measured from the fire points, and it does not reference the main vehicle rules either.

It says they have Fire Points just like some transport vehicles. That's enough of a reference for me, since the Fire Point rules are only located in one place in the rulebook.

The only way they are usable is by using the rule allowing them to take aspects of the vehicle rules, which you would be arbitrarily ignoring unless you allow unoccupied buildings to be shot at.

Again, the statement that they use aspects of the vehicle rules does not, in itself, do anything. You can't take that statement and take it to mean that you can choose which aspects of the vehicle rules to use.

Buildings use aspects of the vehicle rules. Which aspects? The ones that are specifically addressed in the Building rules.


Buildings use the vehicle rules for embarking and disembarking because the building rules say that units may embark and disembark as with a vehicle.
Buildings use the fire point rules because the building rules say they have fire points like a transport vehicle.
Buildings may be attacked in the same manner as a vehicle when occupied because the building rules say that occupied buildings may be attacked in the same manner as a vehicle.

Nowhere in the Building rules does it tell you that you can attack an unoccupied building, nor does it tell you what rules to use if you do so. The statement that Buildings use some aspects of the vehicle rules does not allow you to arbitrarily decide to use the vehicle rules wherever you wish.

zatchmo wrote:@thebetter1:

If this is the case (I have no rulebook handy) then this would fall under an aspect of being a vehicle. Again, this does not mean that it shares all the qualities of a vehicle, in fact, the rules specifically mention that you can shoot and assault occupied buildings.

As I stated in my last post, if GW wanted people to be able to shoot at and assault unoccupied buildings the rule would be worded "shoot at and assault buildings." Since the word occupied is present they have put a restriction on it, hence this is one of those times that it doesn't share an aspect with a vehicle.

GW put the word occupied in there because it just flowed better. If you ASSume they even considered how this would cause strict RAW interpretations to make unoccupied buildings immune to attack, then you overestimate GW greatly.
But then again this game wasn't made for people who want to play with a clear and consice ruleset...

Oh wait but were are here to find out how this should be played using strict RAW.
RAW the word occupied would have been omited if they wanted you assaulting / shooting at unoccupied buildings.

@scarab5

I don't much like being referred to as an ass for reading the rules, but you are entitled to your opinion.

As far as it flows better, what kind idiocy is that? I know that GW doesn't write the best rules in the world, but I refuse to believe this conversation took place.

"So, what about shooting and assaulting buildings, do we want to have players be able to do it to all buildings?"

"Yeah, but saying 'You can shoot at and assault buildings' doesn't flow well, let's say 'You can shoot at and assault occupied buildings' it flows better that way."

"But won't players get confused by the word occupied?"

"Nah, they'll ASSume we mean all buildings."

I'm just going to toss a little logic in here. Someone mentioned a bastion with automated weapons, I'd say that the building contains a hostile threat, and is therefore occupied. Bastions solved.

a building destroyed becomes a ruin, right? just terrain. I don't see the point in preventing a player from shooting where my forces, by definition, are not at. Unless it's an objective, I really wouldn't mind.

So far, no one has really refuted my fire points example. Sure, buildings have them like vehicles, but do they act like the ones on vehicles? The building rules do not specifically say this.

Bastions are another flaw in your argument. Could you shoot at an unoccupied bastion as it shoots at you? Your argument says you cannot.

thebetter1 wrote:So far, no one has really refuted my fire points example. Sure, buildings have them like vehicles, but do they act like the ones on vehicles? The building rules do not specifically say this.

They do specifically say this. They say that the building has fire points like a transport vehicle. The transport vehicle fire point rules are the only fire point rules in the game. So, saying that the building has fire points like a transport is the same as saying to use the transport vehicle fire point rules... because those rules are the rules for fire points.

So far as Bastions go... if they don't have a rule that says that you can attack them when unoccupied (again, I don't have the book, so have no idea if this is the case) then you canot attack them when unoccupied. That's not a flaw in the argument against you... that's an odd situation created by an expansion that adds automated guns to buildings.


I would certainly allow an opponent to attack them, just as I would (as I already mentioned) allow other unoccupied buildings to be attacked. But as per the actual building rules, it's not possible.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

Illeix wrote:a building destroyed becomes a ruin, right? just terrain. I don't see the point in preventing a player from shooting where my forces, by definition, are not at. Unless it's an objective, I really wouldn't mind.

It's prevented by the rules (or more specifically not allowed, rather than prevented, per se...) because an unoccupied building is also just terrain. And the 40K rules just don't cover attacking terrain features. That was removed in 3rd edition, to streamline the game a little.

Again, the rules do not say that fire points use the vehicle rules. It says that it has fire points like the ones on vehicles, but it never specifies that they operate the same way.

Guess what? They don't.

How, then, are we able to say that a building's fire points inherit the vehicle fire point rules? Unless you are somehow able to interpret the rule about having similar fire points to vehicles as being the same as having fire points that operate the same way as vehicles (which is again incorrect), we are arbitrarily taking rules from the vehicles section.

thebetter1 wrote:Again, the rules do not say that fire points use the vehicle rules.

So to which fire point rules do you think they are referring then?

insaniak wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Again, the rules do not say that fire points use the vehicle rules.

So to which fire point rules do you think they are referring then?

Okay, if I have to state my argument from the start...

The introduction to the building rules says that they use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. I am arguing that not all of the building rules specifically say to use the vehicle rules, therefore they get their properties from this rule. The problem is that you think unoccupied buildings cannot be shot, even though an unoccupied transport could be shot at.

So what does this mean? You are using the general ruling of taking aspects of the transport rules for things like fire points, but you blatantly ignore it for shooting at the building when there are no occupants. It is completely illogical to pick and choose how to apply a rule in this way.