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.

QQ for which we could not find a ready answer to today:

If you have an artillery unit, for instance a Thunderfire cannon and Techmarine, on top of a building which then suffers a Total Collapse or Detonation result, does the actual artillery piece "jump" to safety in the same way as the crew? It basically describes models in the unit jumping to safety and taking a dangerous terrain test at -1 to the result per full 3" of height. While there might be an argument for the Thunderfire cannon being automated and thus capable of independent movement, what about artillery that is not, e.g. Ork gunz, etc.?

Anyway, couldn't seem to see anywhere that prohibited the gun from "jumping" like living infantry, but realistically it sounds pretty dumb if it can do so. Then again the building rules are pretty stupid anyway, but that's another discussion .

Cheers, Gary

Can the gun move when the rest of the unit moves?

If so then it can use the rules for "Leaping Down"

P.S. Any description of jumping on page 95 is purely fluff.

Its not covered in the rules, play it how ever you want.

Another fun one is if you have a 12" tall building, and the lower portion suffers a total collapse but the top most portion is unharmed, does it float in the air?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its not covered in the rules, play it how ever you want.
Another fun one is if you have a 12" tall building, and the lower portion suffers a total collapse but the top most portion is unharmed, does it float in the air?

Sunday night and head hurts.
My "rules lawyer" side says "Of course it floats in the air,: it is a separate structure and nothing says it has to collapse".
My fluff bunny side says "Are you nuts? of course it all falls down in a big wreck, you are lucky ANYTHING survives unless it has a jump pack."

I would say to my opponent: do what you want just give a good explanation for my own amusement and we are golden.

Make it even more twisted:

In the above example where we have 2 sections of a single building on top of each other, and the lower half suffering a total collapse, any unit embarked on the battlements would still have to jump for it, as per the section on page 95 titled Abandon the Battlements. This is because both of the sections can be found 'below' the battlements and the only requirement when it comes to jumping is if the building below suffers a total collapse or you are falling back. So while the upper half of a multiple-part building, and the battlements on top of that section, remain undamaged any embarked troops would still leap for it.

All because this rule doesn't give them the choice.....

The part I find curious is how they talk about the battlements sustaining damage yet it is not possible for a battlement to sustain direct damage. It was a gray area within the base rule book itself, thanks to the line which states you direct attacks against the unit on the battlements, but one could reasonably argue that secondary damage from blast templates could be applied to the battlements. If left a few questions but it was possible if you followed previous rules and discussed things like armor values for the buildings, as laid out in chapters prior to battlements. However this has been proven false thanks to Frequently Asked Questions on this matter, in particular asking what the armor value is, we know that battlements can never sustained direct damage. Just another example of how poorly written the Question and Answers are when it comes to this section of the book.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its not covered in the rules, play it how ever you want.

This, of course, is false.

It is covered in the rules, specifically on page 95 (Leaping down section) and page 46 (Moving with artillery section)

P.S. you do not have a building floating there, nothing says to remove the building when it suffers a total collapse, the building remains in place.

Correct on both accounts DeathReaper.

The rule states that the unit must do X and the artillery piece in question, assuming it is not an gun emplacement in any case, is part of the unit. Therefore the artillery piece would also have to follow the rest of the unit down, and carry out any requested tests as well. If it is still on the board afterward it proceeds to function exactly like normal, showing it weathered the fall just as well as the fleshy things that jumped down after it.

As for the total collapse, you are right on the rule regards but the fluff still paints an interesting picture. For while the rules only make it into impassable terrain, the fluff explains why no one is allowed into the building afterwards, it is just a building shaped pile of rubble. In this case a pile of rubble with still enough support beams standing to hold up the floors above the collapse I guess. Though personally, I like the idea of a floating building far better....

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its not covered in the rules, play it how ever you want.

This, of course, is false.

It is covered in the rules, specifically on page 95 (Leaping down section) and page 46 (Moving with artillery section)

P.S. you do not have a building floating there, nothing says to remove the building when it suffers a total collapse, the building remains in place.

1) You are right, the artillery unit is covered in the rules. I was thinking of the terrain weapon type things...

2) Never thought about the floating building problem that way before and that does make sense. The floors in the lower half collapse but the walls remain structural enough to make it impassable terrain as well as climatically hold up the upper half.

3) "of course" seems like I should take offense to that...

Thanks for the responses. Though it may be the rules and I will play it that way, I have to say it's pretty idiotic even for GW. JMO of course...

Cheers, Gary

It can get even better if you build an especially impressive piece of terrain for say apok which might have several building sections on top of each other. Should I ever end up facing such a building I would make it my mission to try and tear it down from the ground up until only the tallest towers are barely holding on for dear life.