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.

So, A Total Collapse or Detonation! result destroys all emplaced weapons on a building (p. 94) and renders the building impassible. However, the Icarus lascannon or quad-gun purchasable by an Imperial Bastion is not an emplaced gun but rather a gun emplacement. Thus, it is not affected by a Total Collapse or Detonation! result. Given that Jet Pack, Jump, and Jetbike models can move onto impassable terrain, they can still jump onto the Bastion wreck and fire the gun emplacement.

This seems crazy but looks unambiguously correct RAW. Any thoughts?

I'd say yes (without glancing at the building/fortification rules).
Also unambiguously not RAI.

Well by using commonsence... wouldnt the gun be destroyed if the whole building collapsed? check up the FAQ if there might be something about this^^

phatonic wrote:
Well by using commonsence... wouldnt the gun be destroyed if the whole building collapsed? check up the FAQ if there might be something about this^^

The FAQ ruled that the gun was a gun emplacement, not an emplaced gun. This is one of a few strange results of that choice.

Overall, GW's decision to make the rules for "gun emplacements" and "emplaced guns" extremely different is probably one of the bigger errors I've seen. At least they fixed the "Hover Strike" and "Hover Mode" problem with the recent Death From the Skies release and Stormtalon revamp.

As a weapon emplacement, it's a model on the roof which, being immobile, cannot jump off when it collapses, so it dies anyway.

Pyrian wrote:
As a weapon emplacement, it's a model on the roof which, being immobile, cannot jump off when it collapses, so it dies anyway.

If it is a model, what is its unit type?

 Happyjew wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
As a weapon emplacement, it's a model on the roof which, being immobile, cannot jump off when it collapses, so it dies anyway.

If it is a model, what is its unit type?

I don't think it has a specific unit type, but a Gun emplacement has a profile (BRB p105) and can also be targeted by shooting and close combat attacks. (I don't think that the BRB says that a model needs a specific unit type to be classified as a model but I could be wrong.)

Page 3 of the rulebook tells us that a model has a characteristic profile and a unit type. Gun emplacements aren't models; they're terrain.

-------

As for the original question, I agree with Kingsley and rigel2. It does seem to work this way, and to be an unintended consequence of GW making gun emplacements and emplaced guns different things.

Gun emplacements are certainly terrain, but that in no way exempts them from being destroyed like normal models. (Or, if it does, it prevents them from ever being destroyed at all, as any effects of its profile can only be applied to models. An argument I could totally see Rigeld2 and Nosf' making.)

...Also, while jump infantry can land on impassable terrain, they still cannot in any way occupy a destroyed building, as it is separately forbidden.

Pyrian wrote:
Gun emplacements are certainly terrain, but that in no way exempts them from being destroyed like normal models.

Since they're not models, they're not affected by any rule which references models. Except shooting and assault, because the rules for this particular kind of terrain, on page 105, specifically say you can shoot and attack them.

Pyrian wrote:
...Also, while jump infantry can land on impassable terrain, they still cannot in any way occupy a destroyed building, as it is separately forbidden.

Sure. But you don't need to occupy the building to fire a gun emplacement. You just need to be in base contact with the gun emplacement.

So would this mean troops on the battlements would be safe, as the battlements are considered a separate part of the building?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So would this mean troops on the battlements would be safe, as the battlements are considered a separate part of the building?

No, the rules specifically cover what happens to models on a battlement when the building below them gets destroyed.

I concur with the RAW of the OP's premise. We came to the same conclusion while doing our conference call for the BAO/Adepticon/FoB/WargamesCon tournament FAQs...of course we then all agreed that was an absurd situation that we were all 100% sure that GW would rule against should they even think it was worth asking about.

But then again, there are just tons of grey areas when it comes to Gun Emplacements in general and even more when they're purchased as part of a Fortification.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Except shooting and assault...

...Which did cause the model's destruction. You're not going to convince me that the slight indirection involved makes the gun emplacement magically immune.

BTW, the gun emplacement rules do refer to it as a model, anyway, and while page 3 states that models have unit types, page 44 mentions that they're not always specified.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
...Also, while jump infantry can land on impassable terrain, they still cannot in any way occupy a destroyed building, as it is separately forbidden.

But you don't need to occupy the building to fire a gun emplacement. You just need to be in base contact with the gun emplacement.

Which you can't be, without occupying the building, as the gun emplacement is on the roof. Note that units "occupy" battlements, page 95.

Pyrian wrote:
Gun emplacements are certainly terrain, but that in no way exempts them from being destroyed like normal models. (Or, if it does, it prevents them from ever being destroyed at all, as any effects of its profile can only be applied to models. An argument I could totally see Rigeld2 and Nosf' making.)

I really wouldn't, but thanks for thinking of me.

...Also, while jump infantry can land on impassable terrain, they still cannot in any way occupy a destroyed building, as it is separately forbidden.

As was said - irrelevant. Edit: Good catch. Lemme read the rules on battlements.

Pyrian wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Except shooting and assault...

...Which did cause the model's destruction. You're not going to convince me that the slight indirection involved makes the gun emplacement magically immune.

BTW, the gun emplacement rules do refer to it as a model, anyway, and while page 3 states that models have unit types, page 44 mentions that they're not always specified.

Page 44 does not say that. It says if it isn't specified then consult the summary in the back of the book to find out what it is (which is because older codexes didn't list unit types always).

So as soon as you find me where the summary explains the unit type of a Gun Emplacement then we can proceed from there. And if you do figure out the unit type for a Gun Emplacement, I can't wait to start moving them around during my movement phase.

Pyrian wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Except shooting and assault...

...Which did cause the model's destruction. You're not going to convince me that the slight indirection involved makes the gun emplacement magically immune.

No, shooting or assault caused the building's destruction.

Any models in the building were killed by the building collapsing.

 yakface wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
...page 44 mentions that they're not always specified.

Page 44 does not say that. It says if it isn't specified...

 yakface wrote:
And if you do figure out the unit type for a Gun Emplacement, I can't wait to start moving them around during my movement phase.

They're neither mobile nor considered your unit.

 insaniak wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Except shooting and assault...

...Which did cause the model's destruction. You're not going to convince me that the slight indirection involved makes the gun emplacement magically immune.

No, shooting or assault caused the building's destruction.

Any models in the building were killed by the building collapsing.

Pyrian wrote:
You're not going to convince me that the slight indirection involved makes the gun emplacement magically immune.

Not enough? You're arguing that an indirect kill is not caused by the original source - a statement directly contradicted by existing rules:

Q: If a unit with the Power from Pain special rule destroys an enemy
unit, does it gain a pain token no matter how the unit was destroyed?
For example the resultant explosion from shooting at a vehicle wipes out
an enemy unit. (p25)
A: Yes.

Oh, and does anybody have a counter-argument to the assertion that the jump infantry cannot possible get there in the first place? Because that's explicitly forbidden, rendering the rest of this largely academic.

Pyrian wrote:
Oh, and does anybody have a counter-argument to the assertion that the jump infantry cannot possible get there in the first place? Because that's explicitly forbidden, rendering the rest of this largely academic.

Page 47, middle column, first paragraph (second paragraph under Skyborne) specifically allows Jump models to move onto impassable terrain.

 Happyjew wrote:
Page 47, middle column, first paragraph (second paragraph under Skyborne) specifically allows Jump models to move onto impassable terrain.

So, you're unaware of the point of contention, and didn't bother to look. I guess I should've repeated it.

It is not sufficient to be capable of moving into impassable terrain, as a collapsed building is not only impassable terrain, it is also impossible to "occupy", which happens to be a term used for a unit on a battlement. Permission to move onto impassable terrain gets past one restriction, but not the other.

You are not occupying the building. The Gun Emplacement cannot be in the building at all, only on top of it. If you are on top of the building, you are not occupying the building.

Pyrian wrote:
You're arguing that an indirect kill is not caused by the original source

Yes. Because otherwise, the building wasn't destroyed by enemy shooting. It was destroyed by a combination of environmental factors and upbringing that resulted in one particular human being deciding to join the Imperial Guard and become a heavy weapon operator.

 Happyjew wrote:
You are not occupying the building. The Gun Emplacement cannot be in the building at all, only on top of it. If you are on top of the building, you are not occupying the building.

The Emplacement is explicitly on the battlements. Battlements must be embarked into.
Find permission to embark into a destroyed battlement.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
You are not occupying the building. The Gun Emplacement cannot be in the building at all, only on top of it. If you are on top of the building, you are not occupying the building.

The Emplacement is explicitly on the battlements. Battlements must be embarked into.
Find permission to embark into a destroyed battlement.

If you embark into a battlement, then you are not on the table to be shot at, and models on a battlement would not have a 4+ cover save.

Battlements were changed to only provide cover and are no longer a 'building' you 'occupy'.

See the FAQ.

Q.Does a Bastion have battlements? (p95)
A: Yes – see the rules for Fortifications, Fire Points and
Armour Values on page 97.
Q.If so,do battlements count as a separate building,or is the
bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the
building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top
of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on
page 95.
Q.What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
You are not occupying the building. The Gun Emplacement cannot be in the building at all, only on top of it. If you are on top of the building, you are not occupying the building.

The Emplacement is explicitly on the battlements. Battlements must be embarked into.
Find permission to embark into a destroyed battlement.

If you embark into a battlement, then you are not on the table to be shot at, and models on a battlement would not have a 4+ cover save.

The rules for Battlements would disagree with you. Page 95 BrB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
Battlements were changed to only provide cover and are no longer a 'building' you 'occupy'.

See the FAQ.

Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes. Follow the same rules for embarking into the building interior to disembark from the battlements. Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the rules on page 95.

If you can disembark, you must be able to embark, right? Right.

rigeld, I point you to the following FAQs:

Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

More importantly:
Q.What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.

And? Neither of them say you don't embark.
I've cited an FAQ that says you do. The rule book says you do.

Cite permission to embark on a destroyed battlement.

How do you DS into something you embark into? How do you embark into something that is neither a vehicle nor building?

 Happyjew wrote:
How do you DS into something you embark into? How do you embark into something that is neither a vehicle nor building?

The FAQ gives you the process. Similar to they explain you can embark by jumping onto the battlements.

As for it not being a building or vehicle - that's GW for you. They gave requirements to embark, haven't rescinded them (even supported them), and made battlements into this nebulous thing that fails when it comes to rules.

OK I will concede that battlement can be embarked. However, the Building suffers the collapse, and cannot be occupied. As the rules state the battlement is separate to the building, where does the rule state that a battlement on a collapsed building cannot be occupied?