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.

These issues came up in a recent game. What do people think?

1) Do buildings and bunkers get 4+ obscured/cover save if 50%+ hidden from the firing unit?

2) If so, does a KFF grant a cover save to a building/bunker if it is within range, given that the rules state that "Units may shoot at an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." and a KFF grants such a save to vehicles?

Glarsnot Bloodcurdle wrote:These issues came up in a recent game. What do people think?

1) Do buildings and bunkers get 4+ obscured/cover save if 50%+ hidden from the firing unit?

2) If so, does a KFF grant a cover save to a building/bunker if it is within range, given that the rules state that "Units may shoot at an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." and a KFF grants such a save to vehicles?

1) Yes.
2) Yes.

Gwar! wrote:1) Yes.
2) Yes.

Which is how we played it. My IG opponent, however, legitimately points out that this doubles the effectiveness of Orky fortifications in a Planetstrike game, especially if you position them within 6" of a central bastion with a KFF inside.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Surprised you would let that go by so easily Gwar!. My personal opinion would be to see what your opponent says about it and play it on a case by case basis so that it doesn't ruin any scenarios that use buildings.

Wouldn't you say that "Units may shoot at an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." is different than treating a building as a vehicle for the purposes of the KFF? I don't have my codex next to me right now but I don't think it specifically references buildings ect. in the rule.

Redonesgofaster wrote:Surprised you would let that go by so easily Gwar!. My personal opinion would be to see what your opponent says about it and play it on a case by case basis so that it doesn't ruin any scenarios that use buildings.

I don't understand, how can you ruin a scenario that uses buildings if you are using the rules? And in all honesty, the building rules for 40k are C.S. Goto level Terribad, so I never use them in my games anyway (the ruin rules are not much better but lesser of two evils and all that).

Redonesgofaster wrote:Wouldn't you say that "Units may shoot at an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." is different than treating a building as a vehicle for the purposes of the KFF? I don't have my codex next to me right now but I don't think it specifically references buildings ect. in the rule.

The KFF doesn't refer to buildings because the codex is 4th edition. 4th edition didn't have building rules.

Furthermore, the sentence "Units may shoot at an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." means exactly that, you treat it as if it were a vehicle. If a vehicle was within 6" of a Mek, would it get a cover save? Yes, so therefore the building does too.

Couldn't someone argue that buildings aren't actually your units and as such wouldn't get the benefit of your special rule?

BrockRitcey wrote:Couldn't someone argue that buildings aren't actually your units and as such wouldn't get the benefit of your special rule?

IIRC KFF actually gets everything including enemy units.

Though I agree there are plenty of arguments that could be raised to say that KFF will not affect buildings. Such as building are not listed as something given cover saves by the KFF.

My point is
If you insist that the KFF works for you on buildings and try to slip them in there in regular games it will probably foster some resentment from players.
If you are playing in a competitive environment with buildings you will have some trouble with the flimsy "Buildings are treated as vehicles for shooting" rule.
If you are playing a fun or interesting scenario that includes buildings/defenses (planetstrike ect.) the KFF may imbalance the setup leading to a less enjoyable experience.

So bringing it up to your opponent may help to avoid difficulties.

KFF does NOT include enemy units, as it deos not specify it does. Read the BRB FAQ.

Bulidings are treated as vehicles is exactly what it sounds like, and is not flimsy.

BrockRitcey wrote:Couldn't someone argue that buildings aren't actually your units and as such wouldn't get the benefit of your special rule?

They could, but it wouldn't make much sense.

Occupied buildings are treated more or less as ommobile vehicles. While they're occupied by your models, enemy models can attack them as they would a vehicle, and can not enter them. So while the rules don't exactly spell it out as such, to all intents and purposes a building occupied by one of your units is also one of your units.

You are given permission to occupy them and the enemy is given permission to attack while they are occupied them but that still doesn't make them your units.

Despite having always played that KFFs affect buildings, I must say that the "not your units" argument is a strong one on logical grounds. The RAW says that it provides a cover save to "units," and while the subsequent sentence separately speaks about its effects on vehicles, the sentence structure leaves the clear inference that it is a subordinate/clarifying to the sentence before it (and hence it only applies to "units")

Buildings are clearly not units.

Glarsnot Bloodcurdle wrote:Buildings are clearly not units.

So they can never be shot at, "embarked" upon or have any interaction whatsoever with the game save for granting a cover save like area terrain?

Gwar! wrote:

Glarsnot Bloodcurdle wrote:Buildings are clearly not units.

So they can never be shot at, "embarked" upon or have any interaction whatsoever with the game save for granting a cover save like area terrain?

That's a straw-grot argument, since the rules explicitly provide for those things, as we both know. That doesn't make then units, however.

It is a logical fallacy to assert that because objects share some common attribute or attributes, they are necessarily the same thing. Not only are buildings not "units" in the everyday sense of the term, they are also not one of the unit types described in the core rules. On the contrary, they are explicitly defined as a form of terrain. Also, while they "use aspects of the transport vehicle rules," the syntax of that sentence clearly implies that they are NOT transport vehicles.