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.

@zatchmo

The point I was making is that we are forced to assume every single word was intentionally placed in the rules when we use RAW interpretations. It is quite possible that the intention was to give an example NOT create a rule against unoccupied buildings. But there is no point in trying to determine what was meant.



I just enjoy this quote. Don't take it as a personal assault.

“When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.”

~ Oscar Wilde on Assumption

thebetter1 wrote: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.

And that's still a flawed argument because, for the third time, saying that the building uses aspects of the vehicle rules does not allow you to randomly select vehicle rules to use, and because the building rules do specify when to use the vehicle rules.

The problem is that you think unoccupied buildings cannot be shot, even though an unoccupied transport could be shot at.

Indeed I do. Because the building rules never state that unoccupied buildings can be attacked. They only specify that occupied buildings can be attacked, and that this is resolves as for a vehicle.

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.

I'm doing nothing of the sort, because having aspects of the vehicle rules is not a general rule.


If I say my cat has aspects of a chicken, what does that tell you?

Do I mean she's not real bright?
Do I mean she lays eggs?
Do I mean she eats anything that moves?
Do I mean she can fly short distances when she really wants to?

Without more information, you have no way of knowing. All you know is that she shares some undefined characteristics with a chicken. In order for you to know which characteristics of a chicken she has, I would have to tell you.

The same is true here. The building rules tell you that buildings use some aspects of the vehicle rules. That in itself means nothing. You have no way of knowing, just from that statement, which vehicle rules to use.

For that, the building rules need to tell you which vehicle rules to use. Which they do: The rules for embarking and disembarking, the rules for fire points, and when occupied, the rules for attacking vehicles.

You can't apply any other rules for vehicles, because the building section doesn't tell you to do so. It outlines exactly which vehicle rules to use.

It is completely illogical to pick and choose how to apply a rule in this way.

Indeed. But that's exactly what you're trying to do. You're claiming that the vehicle rules that you choose must apply to buildings, regardless of which vehicle rules the building section actually tells you to apply.

insaniak wrote:

thebetter1 wrote: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.

And that's still a flawed argument because, for the third time, saying that the building uses aspects of the vehicle rules does not allow you to randomly select vehicle rules to use, and because the building rules do specify when to use the vehicle rules.

You've got it backwards. You're the one who is randomly selecting vehicle rules to use in that you take the rules for fire points (which do not specify to use the vehicle rules) but not for shooting unoccupied transports. I'm taking all the vehicle rules except where specifically noted otherwise, for consistency. I really have no idea where you got the idea that I'm randomly picking rules; can you even show one instance where I did this?

insaniak wrote:

The problem is that you think unoccupied buildings cannot be shot, even though an unoccupied transport could be shot at.

Indeed I do. Because the building rules never state that unoccupied buildings can be attacked.

Nor does it state that firers measure distances and line of sight to the fire points, but you have no problem playing that way.

insaniak wrote: They only specify that occupied buildings can be attacked, and that this is resolves as for a vehicle.

It also says that buildings take on the rules of transport vehicles, which can be shot when empty.


The only way I see that you can advance your argument any further is to show that the rule where buildings get some of the characteristics of vehicles is invalid, which causes problems with fire points.

thebetter1 wrote:You've got it backwards. You're the one who is randomly selecting vehicle rules to use in that you take the rules for fire points (which do not specify to use the vehicle rules) but not for shooting unoccupied transports.

I'm taking the rules for fire points because the building section says that they have fire points.

If the building section said that buildings could move like skimmers, I would likewise apply the rules for skimmers, regardless of whether or not the building rules actually specify that they mean 'the skimmer rules in the vehicle section'. The skimmer rules are in the vehicle section... so those are the rules that you apply.

I'm taking all the vehicle rules except where specifically noted otherwise, for consistency. I really have no idea where you got the idea that I'm randomly picking rules; can you even show one instance where I did this?

That's a fair point: 'randomly' picking was a poor choice of wording if that's what you're doing. I was overlooking that you thought all of the vehicle rules should apply... so you seemed to be just randomly choosing to apply the rules for attacking vehicles.

But you're still taking a general comment and trying to make it mean something it doesn't. Saying that buildings use some of the vehicle rules does not mean that buildings use all of the vehicle rules unless stated otherwise.

It simply means that they use some of the vehicle rules. Which ones? For that, you read the building section, and apply the vehicle rules it tells you to apply.

Nor does it state that firers measure distances and line of sight to the fire points, but you have no problem playing that way.

I also have no problem playing that unoccupied buildings can be attacked, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It also says that buildings take on the rules of transport vehicles...

Once again, no, it doesn't.

The only way I see that you can advance your argument any further is to show that the rule where buildings get some of the characteristics of vehicles is invalid, which causes problems with fire points.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think I need to advance it any further. No matter how many times you insist otherwise, the building section does not tell you to apply all of the rules for vehicles. You only apply those that it tells you to apply.

If you're so sure of this, then tell me how you should handle fire points, keeping in mind that the building rules say that they can have fire points but do not say how they work.

The building rules say that they have fire points, so you refer to the fire point rules.

Wow! I go out for a couple of hours and this thread grows to 2 pages!

Fire point and fixed mount weapons notwithstanding, I'd like to go back a bit and address the original question.

Can an unoccupied building be shot at? No, and please all, just take a minute to read the following.

BRB page 78 under buildings, "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 inside."

Hmmmm. Units from either side can go inside. So which army do they belong to? The one that occupies them. And if they are unoccupied, to which side do they beolng? Well, neither. Can you target someting which is not an enemy unit? Let's find out.

BRB page 16 under 'Check Line Of Sight & Pick A Target', "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target...." So we can only shoot at enemy units. Can we shoot at terrain? No. Can we shoot at our own units? No, though they could be wounded by scattering shots. Is an unoccupied building an enemy unit? No, it is not. We wouldn't be able to shoot at it at all if not for the rule on page 79 that says (again), "Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

But occupied by whom? An enemy unit obviously, because we can't target our own troops. So just like a vehicle, we can shoot at an enemy occupied building, and in fact, thanks to the vehicle rules, if the building is destroyed and the occupants have to get out (disembark) they can not be assaulted by the unit that destroyed the building.

One other point, buildings that can't be occupied are considered impassable terrain and guess what? They can't be shot at either.

So, I believe IMHO that only occupied buildings can be shot at, because you are trying to damage or destroy the enemy unit within. And I can't find anything in the rules that allows shooting at unoccupied buildings.

Why wouldn't you be able to shoot at them>???

r3n3g8b0y wrote:Why wouldn't you be able to shoot at them>???

...because of the several legitimate RAW reasons detailed in this thread?

r3n3g8b0y wrote:Why wouldn't you be able to shoot at them>???

I thought I just explained why not.

What happens if you fire at an enemy and a blast lands on a building?

Nothing, building only blow up when people be in them

Norade wrote:What happens if you fire at an enemy and a blast lands on a building?

scarab5 wrote:Nothing, building only blow up when people be in them

Yes, and also because scattering shots can hit units out of range and sight, your own units, even units locked in combat. But buildings are not units. They can only be occupied by units.

That does make sense, although GW is missing out on the chance to sell ruined versions of their buildings now... xD

They do sell them. They are contained in the "Imperial Sector" boxes!

yeah but still...

Imagine how many more they'd sell if you could destroy any building you pleased. Same with cratered hills, and such, I know that I would be interested in such models and don't have the time these days to convert them.

time wizard wrote:Wow! I go out for a couple of hours and this thread grows to 2 pages!

Fire point and fixed mount weapons notwithstanding, I'd like to go back a bit and address the original question.

Can an unoccupied building be shot at? No, and please all, just take a minute to read the following.

BRB page 78 under buildings, "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 inside."

Hmmmm. Units from either side can go inside. So which army do they belong to? The one that occupies them. And if they are unoccupied, to which side do they beolng? Well, neither. Can you target someting which is not an enemy unit? Let's find out.

BRB page 16 under 'Check Line Of Sight & Pick A Target', "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target...." So we can only shoot at enemy units. Can we shoot at terrain? No. Can we shoot at our own units? No, though they could be wounded by scattering shots. Is an unoccupied building an enemy unit? No, it is not. We wouldn't be able to shoot at it at all if not for the rule on page 79 that says (again), "Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

But occupied by whom? An enemy unit obviously, because we can't target our own troops. So just like a vehicle, we can shoot at an enemy occupied building, and in fact, thanks to the vehicle rules, if the building is destroyed and the occupants have to get out (disembark) they can not be assaulted by the unit that destroyed the building.

One other point, buildings that can't be occupied are considered impassable terrain and guess what? They can't be shot at either.

So, I believe IMHO that only occupied buildings can be shot at, because you are trying to damage or destroy the enemy unit within. And I can't find anything in the rules that allows shooting at unoccupied buildings.

My thoughts exactly.

Thebetter1, you have yet to show a rule that actually allows you to target a building. You've proven that they are treated as vehicles but this alone does not allow you to fire at them, since you can only fire at enemy units. The building rules stipulate that you can fire at them when occupied, so that is the only time in which you can fire at them.

I have rarely seen an argument so well-expressed (by two people, in this case), and the other side so thoroughly debunked.

Well done, Timewizard and Insaniak. Though honestly, the rules are sufficiently clear that it should not have required such detailed explanations.

time wizard wrote:
Hmmmm. Units from either side can go inside. So which army do they belong to? The one that occupies them

Your whole argument now rests on this. I have one problem with it: where do the rules indicate this? Someone show a quote with a page number.

thebetter1 wrote:Your whole argument now rests on this. I have one problem with it: where do the rules indicate this? Someone show a quote with a page number.

Here is a thought, why not read the rulebook for once instead of asking people to post it quote by quote?

thebetter1 wrote:

time wizard wrote:
Hmmmm. Units from either side can go inside. So which army do they belong to? The one that occupies them

Your whole argument now rests on this. I have one problem with it: where do the rules indicate this? Someone show a quote with a page number.

BRB page 78, 4th paragraph; "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 inside."

time wizard wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

time wizard wrote:
Hmmmm. Units from either side can go inside. So which army do they belong to? The one that occupies them

Your whole argument now rests on this. I have one problem with it: where do the rules indicate this? Someone show a quote with a page number.

BRB page 78, 4th paragraph; "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 inside."

Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear but I was actually asking about the second part.

But the fact that you acknowledge that rule means that my argument has been correct this whole time, unless you can find a quote supporting the fact that buildings belong to the player occupying them.

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Your whole argument now rests on this. I have one problem with it: where do the rules indicate this? Someone show a quote with a page number.

Here is a thought, why not read the rulebook for once instead of asking people to post it quote by quote?

I really have no idea what it is that you have against me. At least I'm presenting actual rules arguments.

thebetter1 wrote:I really have no idea what it is that you have against me. At least I'm presenting actual rules arguments.

You aren't though. Every single one of your posts have been "Show me where it says I can't do it Post Rules please because I haven't read the rulebook".

thebetter1 wrote:
Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear but I was actually asking about the second part.

But the fact that you acknowledge that rule means that my argument has been correct this whole time, unless you can find a quote supporting the fact that buildings belong to the player occupying them.

That would be on page 79 under "Attacking Buildings"; The best way to kill enemy troops in a fortified position is usually just to destroy the fortified position. Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

And since page 16 of the BRB under "Check Line Of Sight & Pick A Target" says thet; "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target...",

Then it would mean that by the rules, you can only attack an occupied building, and only if it is occupied by an enemy unit, since a friendly unit would not be a valid target.

I was asking for a quote stating that a building is only enemy if it is occupied by the enemy, which you have not yet provided.

thebetter1 wrote:I was asking for a quote stating that a building is only enemy if it is occupied by the enemy, which you have not yet provided.

Yes he has, if you had bothered to read:

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

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:I was asking for a quote stating that a building is only enemy if it is occupied by the enemy, which you have not yet provided.

Yes he has, if you had bothered to read:

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

If you aren't going to actually read my posts, maybe I should stop reading yours.

A building does not have any rules saying that it is only an enemy unit when an enemy unit is inside, just like transport vehicles are enemy units when they are empty. The quote you provided is meaningless at this point.

thebetter1 wrote:The quote you provided is meaningless at this point.

Yeah, lets see.

1) Building is Occupied by an Enemy Unit
2) Can I shoot it? Yes, because "Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."
3) Shoot it.

1) Building is not Occupied
2) Can I shoot it? No, because "Units may shoot at or assault an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." No permission is given to shoot unoccupied buildings.
3) Can't shoot it.

In short, you sir are incorrect. Please be man enough to admit it.

thebetter1 wrote:I was asking for a quote stating that a building is only enemy if it is occupied by the enemy, which you have not yet provided.

He doesn't need one.

The occupied building doesn't need to be an enemy unit. You're specifically given permission to attack it.
An unoccupied building is never defined as an enemy unit. The rules never specifically mention being able to attack it anyway.

Since the only things you are ever given permission to attack are enemy units and occupied buildings, that leaves you being unable to attack an unoccupied building, since it is neither of these things.