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.

 Happyjew wrote:

barnowl wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
..., because then you can't play with them by actual rules.

Frankly, that would still be my preferred option. If nobody uses the damn things, maybe GW might actually stop and take the time to finish writing their rules.

oh I'm sure they're planning a new terrain book like death from the skies to milk another $70 out of people.

Don't give them any ideas!

But...they could finally fix all the messed up fortification rules, and add in new xenos-specific fortifications.

and hopefully in time for my ork dex. I heard a rumor I'm getting a rock for a drop pod that is then treated as a fortification. What could possible go wrong rules wise there?

oh and let the rock do some sort of TFTD attack (because it's orky and matt ward) then watch everyone switch sides on the drop pods landing on models debate

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am seeing that the rules, in this situation do not work at all, as terrain is not a unit.

P.S. they tell you how to attack a building in CC as well as shoot a it, so the rules work just fine in those cases.

yes you attack them as if they are a vehicle. Are vehicles models? are vehicles units?

yes to both.

Shooting and assaulting vehicles refers you back to the basic rules for shooting & assaulting.

read through those rules again and see any allowance to target anything other than a enemy unit.

So if you say, yes treat it like a vehicle, but not a unit, none of those rules work.

so as we treat buildings like vehicles, then we are also treating them like units and models, then the rules work.

We are told to treat it like a vehicle, not like a unit. you are making that up.

Nope, read through the shooting and especially the assaulting rules. If at all times a building is not a model, nor a unit, it can't be assaulted. A vehicle is a model & a unit so it can be assaulted using the rules for assaulting. We assault buildings as if they were vehicles which in order to resolve an assault we need to treat the building like a model & unit like we would a vehicle.

If one does not let you shoot, when the rules clearly tell you how to shoot with a fortification, then that interpretation can not be correct.

So what unit type is the fortification, you know, since all models have a unit type..
.
Bottom line terrain is not a model or a unit ever.

SirLynchMob,

The very fact that buildings have unique rules granting units permission to shoot and assault them is very telling in the entirety of itself. If these terrain pieces where already models, and therefore units as well, there would be no need to have as many additional rules as we do. The very existence of a whole sub-set of rules within an already existing subset informs us that the writer thought they needed some specific permission to overcome an existing limitation. Many people believe these rules exist to get around the simple fact buildings do not meet the defined nature of 'models' and, therefore, are not valid legal targets under shooting and assault rules.

If the limitation was not 'terrain is not models' then what could these rules be addressing?

Also makes a lot of sense fluff-wise.
When programming auto-defence systems, you don't want them firing at buildings. Only enemy Troops/Vehicles.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am seeing that the rules, in this situation do not work at all, as terrain is not a unit.

P.S. they tell you how to attack a building in CC as well as shoot a it, so the rules work just fine in those cases.

yes you attack them as if they are a vehicle. Are vehicles models? are vehicles units?

yes to both.

Shooting and assaulting vehicles refers you back to the basic rules for shooting & assaulting.

read through those rules again and see any allowance to target anything other than a enemy unit.

So if you say, yes treat it like a vehicle, but not a unit, none of those rules work.

so as we treat buildings like vehicles, then we are also treating them like units and models, then the rules work.

We are told to treat it like a vehicle, not like a unit. you are making that up.

Nope, read through the shooting and especially the assaulting rules. If at all times a building is not a model, nor a unit, it can't be assaulted. A vehicle is a model & a unit so it can be assaulted using the rules for assaulting. We assault buildings as if they were vehicles which in order to resolve an assault we need to treat the building like a model & unit like we would a vehicle.

If one does not let you shoot, when the rules clearly tell you how to shoot with a fortification, then that interpretation can not be correct.

So what unit type is the fortification, you know, since all models have a unit type..
.
Bottom line terrain is not a model or a unit ever.

When it's being treated as a vehicle it has the unit type transport. go check out the other VWB thread to see what other fun things the "no model" side can lead to.

Bottom line is if the unit and model type does not go along with being treated like a vehicle you can't shoot it, nor assault it.

sirlynchmob wrote:


When it's being treated as a vehicle it has the unit type transport. go check out the other VWB thread to see what other fun things the "no model" side can lead to.

Bottom line is if the unit and model type does not go along with being treated like a vehicle you can't shoot it, nor assault it.

Yes you can as you have specific permission to shoot and assault them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


When it's being treated as a vehicle it has the unit type transport. go check out the other VWB thread to see what other fun things the "no model" side can lead to.

Bottom line is if the unit and model type does not go along with being treated like a vehicle you can't shoot it, nor assault it.

Yes you can as you have specific permission to shoot and assault them.

you have specific permission to shoot & assault them As if they were vehicles. As vehicles are models & units, then when buildings are treated as vehicles by extension they are also buildings & units.

can you please walk me through your logic of how you go through the shooting phase and assault phases and reconcile "not a model nor unit" with the rules found there. I'm thinking you're removing all the unit & model restrictions from the rules which is exactly the same as saying "by extension buildings are models & units when it's being treated like a vehicle.

and if my RAW is so flawed on buildings someone might want to go help this guy out as I'm the only one who's responded so far
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/559766.page

Vehicles are only models because they have a Unit type.
It's the unit type that makes them a model, there's no vehicle specific rule that makes them a model.
Treating something like a vehicle doesn't give them a Unit Type.

 grendel083 wrote:
Vehicles are only models because they have a Unit type.
It's the unit type that makes them a model, there's no vehicle specific rule that makes them a model.
Treating something like a vehicle doesn't give them a Unit Type.

Even though that something has a type: transport?
transport is a type right? and buildings use all aspects of the transport rules.
so when shot were treating like a vehicle: transport

and you as well, can you please walk me through your logic of how you go through the shooting phase and assault phases and reconcile "not a model nor unit" with the rules found there. I'm thinking you're removing all the unit & model restrictions from the rules which is exactly the same as saying "by extension buildings are models & units when it's being treated like a vehicle.

First off, building are messy rules. They can't shoot as per RAW, as you've mentioned the shooting sequence requires you to pick a model (which building aren't). Just to allow them to shoot requires some rule-bending. It's a sad state.

They lack a Unit Type. Yes you can logically apply one (vehicle (transport)), but that is assumption, no rule states this.

A Rhino is unit Type: Vehicle (Tank, Transport). How do we know this? This isn't part of the vehicle rules, this is found on the data sheet. It is here that the model is defined. Same for every model/unit in the game.
Buildings also have data sheets, but these lack unit types. There is then a whole series of rules getting round the fact that they are not models, allowing them to be shot and assaulted (but sadly not addressing the first point, of the shooting sequence).

No rule says that all vehicles have the unit type: vehicle. They potentially do, but it is up to the data sheet to define the unit type.

 grendel083 wrote:
First off, building are messy rules. They can't shoot as per RAW, as you've mentioned the shooting sequence requires you to pick a model (which building aren't). Just to allow them to shoot requires some rule-bending. It's a sad state.

They lack a Unit Type. Yes you can logically apply one (vehicle (transport)), but that is assumption, no rule states this.

A Rhino is unit Type: Vehicle (Tank, Transport). How do we know this? This isn't part of the vehicle rules, this is found on the data sheet. It is here that the model is defined. Same for every model/unit in the game.
Buildings also have data sheets, but these lack unit types. There is then a whole series of rules getting round the fact that they are not models, allowing them to be shot and assaulted (but sadly not addressing the first point, of the shooting sequence).

No rule says that all vehicles have the unit type: vehicle. They potentially do, but it is up to the data sheet to define the unit type.

Agreed, but from there we have 2 options of dealing with it.

A) agree that while it's treated like a vehicle by extension treat it like a model and unit as well. This almost totally eliminates the issues with the rest of the series of rules.
B) keep with the it's not a model nor unit ever, then house rule all other rules to keep them working.

But I would like to see how you see shooting into CC with buildings in the other thread I linked. Because not a model and also not being treated as a vehicle when it shoots would seem to indicate that, it is the intent that buildings can shoot into CC. Care to go on record and state buildings can shoot into CC because RAW?

Personally I go with option B. It's not as easy as the first option, but seems to be the intent.

It's an interesting thing the Close Combat problem.

Yes RAW a building could potentially shoot into combat, as it's not a model, but then again RAW it can't shoot at all due to the shooting sequence mess.

 grendel083 wrote:
Personally I go with option B. It's not as easy as the first option, but seems to be the intent.

It's an interesting thing the Close Combat problem.

Yes RAW a building could potentially shoot into combat, as it's not a model, but then again RAW it can't shoot at all due to the shooting sequence mess.

The way I've always played "shoot the nearest enemy unit" was shoot the nearest legal enemy unit. Therefore, if the nearest enemy unit is in CC, you would default to the next closest. Not RAW but HIPI.

Aye, a good way to play it.
There's also the more humorous way (especially if you consider an Ork Vengeance Battery) of shooting into combat and randomising the shots. Automated targeting system causes a "friendly fire" incident...

Well seeing as how I play Nids with very, very little Synapse, this tends to come up.

 grendel083 wrote:
Personally I go with option B. It's not as easy as the first option, but seems to be the intent.

It's an interesting thing the Close Combat problem.

Yes RAW a building could potentially shoot into combat, as it's not a model, but then again RAW it can't shoot at all due to the shooting sequence mess.

Well that's not quite true, you can take the rule "each emplaced weapon that is not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit...." As permission for it to shoot, and as it has enemy units to target so we're good to pick a target and roll to hit it.

RAW, you just can't shoot at the buildings without being able to target an enemy unit. (you're either ignore the enemy unit or house rule to add on "and buildings") (I say by extension of the vehicle rules they count as enemy units) same result, different ways to get there.

so why am I now seeing 2 people who argue "not a model" quickly adding on "the rules are a mess" and a house rule which doesn't address that a enemy unit in CC would be a legal target for something that's not a model?

RAW, the only way to stop a building from targeting a enemy unit in CC is to say "because it's a model."

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well that's not quite true, you can take the rule "each emplaced weapon that is not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit...." As permission for it to shoot, and as it has enemy units to target so we're good to pick a target and roll to hit it.

But when can you shoot it? You still need to follow the shooting sequence, which starts "Nominate a Unit..."

RAW, you just can't shoot at the buildings without being able to target an enemy unit. (you're either ignore the enemy unit or house rule to add on "and buildings") (I say by extension of the vehicle rules they count as enemy units) same result, different ways to get there.

page93 disagrees with you here. There's a whole section giving you permission to shoot a building.

so why am I now seeing 2 people who argue "not a model" quickly adding on "the rules are a mess" and a house rule which doesn't address that a enemy unit in CC would be a legal target for something that's not a model?

RAW, the only way to stop a building from targeting a enemy unit in CC is to say "because it's a model."

RAW you would point out it can't shoot.
If you're going to house rule it so it can fire, then agree to house rule CC however you like.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well that's not quite true, you can take the rule "each emplaced weapon that is not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit...." As permission for it to shoot, and as it has enemy units to target so we're good to pick a target and roll to hit it.

But when can you shoot it? You still need to follow the shooting sequence, which starts "Nominate a Unit..."

You wouldn't say the rule for emplaced weapons is more specific than the general rule?
it's automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit, not even a "may" in that statement, you have to do it.

what's the rest of pg 93 say? as if it was a vehicle, not just you can shoot buildings. you can only shoot them as if it was a vehicles. Vehicles are enemy units so they can be shoot following the shooting rules. Vehicles are models so they can be assaulted following the assault rules. ergo when buildings=vehicles they must also count as enemy units so they can be shoot&assaulted following the shooting rules.

This is really the cleanest way to work with buildings. RAW=yes, no other rule changes needed. Otherwise if you stick with it's not a unit, let's change all the other rules to work and you come off as TFG and a hypocrite.

Can you shoot buildings even though their not units? you say sure, we're ignoring all references to unit.
Can you assault buildings even though their not units and you have no model to move into b2b with? you say sure, we're ignoring all references to unit.
Can you put a blessing or malediction on a building? you say heck no, their not units.

Well why the two answers? if you're ignore the unit requirement for shooting & assaulting than why keep it for psychic powers?
I know I'm adding in the psychic powers and you haven't said anything about it in this thread, but I'm fairly sure last time this came up you agreed with the rest of the "no unit" side for blessings and maledictions.

Can you shoot buildings even though their not units? yes RAW you shoot buildings like vehicles and they are units and the shooting rules work as is.
Can you assault buildings even though their not units and you have no model to move into b2b with? yes RAW you assault buildings like vehicles and they are units & models, and the assaulting rules work as is.
Can you put a blessing or malediction on a building? no you are not shooting the building so it doesn't count as a vehicle right now so is not a unit at this time.

one reading of RAW that works awesomely with the rest of the rules without coming off as TFG.

That still leaves firing into CC, and both readings of the rules leads to yes you can.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You wouldn't say the rule for emplaced weapons is more specific than the general rule?
it's automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit, not even a "may" in that statement, you have to do it.

But when? When can you fire them?
When do you fit them I to the shooting sequence? What rule allows this, and when abouts in the shooting sequence does this rule allow them to fit in?

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You wouldn't say the rule for emplaced weapons is more specific than the general rule?
it's automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit, not even a "may" in that statement, you have to do it.

But when? When can you fire them?
When do you fit them I to the shooting sequence? What rule allows this, and when abouts in the shooting sequence does this rule allow them to fit in?

you're kidding right? when you find your brb look up emplaced weapons and automated fire, pg 96.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You wouldn't say the rule for emplaced weapons is more specific than the general rule?
it's automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit, not even a "may" in that statement, you have to do it.

But when? When can you fire them?
When do you fit them I to the shooting sequence? What rule allows this, and when abouts in the shooting sequence does this rule allow them to fit in?

you're kidding right? when you find your brb look up emplaced weapons and automated fire, pg 96.

No, I'm not kidding.
So you have no rule that lets you skip step 1 of the shooting sequence?
The Automated Fire rule doesn't, it only lets the building operate from step 2 and onwards.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You wouldn't say the rule for emplaced weapons is more specific than the general rule?
it's automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit, not even a "may" in that statement, you have to do it.

But when? When can you fire them?
When do you fit them I to the shooting sequence? What rule allows this, and when abouts in the shooting sequence does this rule allow them to fit in?

you're kidding right? when you find your brb look up emplaced weapons and automated fire, pg 96.

No, I'm not kidding.
So you have no rule that lets you skip step 1 of the shooting sequence?
The Automated Fire rule doesn't, it only lets the building operate from step 2 and onwards.

You do know that this rule is the only case you have for your "no unit" but the building can still work RAW right? so go ahead and refute this one as well. Buildings don't count as vehicles during your shooting phase, only when they're shot at.

The rule is replacing step one. you don't nominate the gun to shoot, the gun rules say it's going to shoot now, so go to step 2 as it nominated itself, its non optional.

No Unit Type is why the building isn't a model.
This is just show that buildings simply don't work if you follow RAW. a certain amount of house ruling is required.

The rule does not replace step 1. You still need to choose the unit. Nothing in that rule replaces that.

And why do buildings need a whole set of rules allowing them to shoot? If you're correct they're units anyway, and units already have rules allowing it. So why add a pointless set of rules?

Logical conclusion added with lack of unit type? They're not models.

 grendel083 wrote:
No Unit Type is why the building isn't a model.
This is just show that buildings simply don't work if you follow RAW. a certain amount of house ruling is required.

The rule does not replace step 1. You still need to choose the unit. Nothing in that rule replaces that.

And why do buildings need a whole set of rules allowing them to shoot? If you're correct they're units anyway, and units already have rules allowing it. So why add a pointless set of rules?

Logical conclusion added with lack of unit type? They're not models.

And that conclusion leads to buildings just being terrain and nothing else, they can't shoot, you can't shoot them, and you can't assault them. Ergo it's more than likely the wrong conclusion.

buildings really do work withing RAW as long as we discount this odd notion that they are absolutely never units. isn't transport a unit type?
RAW they're units & models when they are being treated as a vehicle. ie when you shoot or assault them. I've always specified RAW they're units while being treated like a vehicle.
A vehicle is a model and unit(A=mu). Buildings are treated as if they are vehicles (B=A). ergo buildings are models and units while they are treated as vehicles (B=mu).

In order to assault them you need to get past:
move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy MODEL in the UNIT being charged, Vehicles follow this rule as well. A vehicle is a model & unit, buildings are treated as a vehicle and therefore also as models & units. assaulting works.

Buildings are only vehicles when shot at or assaulted, not during your shooting phase. The only rule to grant permission for the weapons to shoot are the emplaced weapons rule. As it's non-optional you don't need to nominate it to shoot, it tells you how to shoot it and when. I only made the argument initially that you can't choose it to shoot as a test to see who was paying attention. No one. The counter to that is the emplaced weapons rule which tells you how and when those guns shoot. the emplaced rules are step 1 of their shooting sequence and leads you into step 2.

my house rule is to just say to heck with it and they're units & models (based on the dictionary definition) and be done with it. Vehicle(building, transport) done and you can then bless or maledict them. It also resolves the other part were not discussing of ongoing combats. it's only a vehicle when you charge it, is it still a vehicle on your opponents assault phase?

So what sort of model do you house rule it as?
A friendly model? If so then how can the enemy enter it?
A neutral model? If so how do you determine what an "enemy" is for the Auto-fire?
It's not quite so clear-cut.

 grendel083 wrote:

A neutral model? If so how do you determine what an "enemy" is for the Auto-fire?
It's not quite so clear-cut.

this is the bit I'm more interested in. as far as I'm concerned the auto fire skips about half the steps in the shooting phase as is, including checking the validity of the target outside of range and LOS and as such can shoot into combat at the nearest enemy unit, however an enemy unit isn't specified.

if you took a bastion as part of your FOC, and I occupy it, what deos the bastion consider an enemy for the autofire purpose? my army (i.e. the opposing FOC) or your army due to you being the occupying forces' enemy? the rules do not seem to cover it, logic would say the occupying forces enemy but......RAW vs HYWPI.....

 grendel083 wrote:
So what sort of model do you house rule it as?
A friendly model? If so then how can the enemy enter it?
A neutral model? If so how do you determine what an "enemy" is for the Auto-fire?
It's not quite so clear-cut.

Sure it is, your army is friendly to your fortifications. the other army treats your fortifications as enemy fortifications.

pg 121 deploy forces.
any friendly unit can deploy within one of their army's fortifications.
once the game begins units are free to move into or out of any fortifications, friendly or enemy.

There's no such thing as neutral in the fortification rules.

RAW no matter who is in your fortification if it autofires it's targeting your opponent so fun times for the Firestorm Redoubt.

so we house ruled that as well to base the emplaced weapons from the unit inside, so if your in a enemy fortification with a non battle brother ally nearby, you can shoot your ally or your oppoent depending on who was closer

sirlynchmob wrote:


Nope, read through the shooting and especially the assaulting rules. If at all times a building is not a model, nor a unit, it can't be assaulted. A vehicle is a model & a unit so it can be assaulted using the rules for assaulting. We assault buildings as if they were vehicles which in order to resolve an assault we need to treat the building like a model & unit like we would a vehicle.

If one does not let you shoot, when the rules clearly tell you how to shoot with a fortification, then that interpretation can not be correct.

pg 93 gives us permission to shoot at and charge a building as if it were a vehicle. This means that for the purposes of charging and the ensuing assault and for the targeting of the shooting attack the building is a model with the unit type vehicle. Outside of the charge/assualt or shooting attack its still not a unit and the split second you are not doing any of these things its not a unit.

When you are choosing what units are firing and what their targets are the buildings are not units. This is fine with the battery because you don't choose to fire it and you don't choose its target, the automated fire does all that for you. All you are doing is resolving the attack.

In every case where the rules would 'fall apart' there is a specific rule for the situation to patch the gap and keep everything working.

Interesting situation with the page 121:
If a fortification is put down by my opponent page 121 states it still is a 'friendly' fortification. If the fortification is then treated as a transport vehicle, giving it a unit type and turning it into a model, it would therefore be a friendly model. This would make it impossible to fire on based on a wide range of rules, seeing targeting friendly units is a no go, as well as make other rules break a little bit. To be fair a few other special rules work better with this conclusion, so there is that but it is a side note to the main point: I have permission to enter the fortification with my unit, while still being able to argue it is friendly to my enemy and therefore he can never touch the unit within.

Of course, if I remember right, the building rules have no requirement that the occupied building be an 'enemy' building... only that it be occupied.