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.

Played a game the other day where we both took a set of Vengeance Batteries.
Fortifications can be placed anywhere on your table half, so we both deploy ours in no man's land.
First turn Shooting phase, the closest enemy model is each others Vengeance Batteries.
Now if Fortifications are considered a unit, they have to fire at each other (which they can't hurt).
A Vengeance Battery can be targeted even though they're not occupied because of it's own rules.

wheresmypulitzer wrote:
Played a game the other day where we both took a set of Vengeance Batteries.
Fortifications can be placed anywhere on your table half, so we both deploy ours in no man's land.
First turn Shooting phase, the closest enemy model is each others Vengeance Batteries.
Now if Fortifications are considered a unit, they have to fire at each other (which they can't hurt).
A Vengeance Battery can be targeted even though they're not occupied because of it's own rules.

You have to fire at the closest unit weather they can hurt it or not.

Fortification like all terrain really needs to be thoroughly discussed.

so come to a consensus with your opponent and play it that way.

Fortifications are not units.

40k-noob wrote:
Fortifications are not units.

But vehicles are units, and the fortification is treated like a vehicle when it is being shot at.

sirlynchmob wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Fortifications are not units.

But vehicles are units, and the fortification is treated like a vehicle when it is being shot at.

Fortifications are treated like vehicles for the purposes or armor penetration and embarking/disembarking. This in no way makes them a unit.

RAW, fortifications are not units. Since vengeance batteries have a caveat that they may be targeted even while empty, there is room for a RAI debate about vengeance batteries targeting each other. Best to discuss it with your opponent before the game.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Fortifications are not units.

But vehicles are units, and the fortification is treated like a vehicle when it is being shot at.

Fortifications are treated like vehicles for the purposes or armor penetration and embarking/disembarking. This in no way makes them a unit.

RAW, fortifications are not units. Since vengeance batteries have a caveat that they may be targeted even while empty, there is room for a RAI debate about vengeance batteries targeting each other. Best to discuss it with your opponent before the game.

you mean to say: the main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move, and units from either side can go inside" Not being a unit would be a significant difference.
if you go down the rabbit hole of "it's not a unit" you have a lot of bizarre situations with shooting and assaulting buildings.

I found the easiest house rule to change the vehicle entries to include buildings and you get:
Vehicle (transport, building)
with the added rule, friendly/enemy units is based on the unit inside the building for automated firing. Unoccupied treats the army it was bought with as friendly.

sirlynchmob wrote:
if you go down the rabbit hole of "it's not a unit" you have a lot of bizarre situations with shooting and assaulting buildings.

Yes, the fortification rules are a mess. But they also make a clear distinction between fortifications and units. Fortifications are not units.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
if you go down the rabbit hole of "it's not a unit" you have a lot of bizarre situations with shooting and assaulting buildings.

Yes, the fortification rules are a mess. But they also make a clear distinction between fortifications and units. Fortifications are not units.

As that makes a further mess of the rules I think it's ok to ignore that distinction.

how to buildings shoot?
like vehicles, ok and vehicles shoot like other units.

pg 12, step 1, choose one of your units. well that doesn't work
step 2, the unit can shoot at one enemy unit. nope still not working

ok lets shoot the building, just like we shoot a vehicle and like a vehicle we must see it's hull or turret.
buildings don't have hulls or turret, nothing to see here, can't shoot them.

I don't get this dread associated with just saying sure buildings are units just like vehicles are units, what is the point of maintaining this distinction if all it does is make the rules that much more of a mess.

As Insaniak said the Fortification rules are a mess.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I don't get this dread associated with just saying sure buildings are units just like vehicles are units, what is the point of maintaining this distinction if all it does is make the rules that much more of a mess.

There is no 'dread' involved. It's just helpful for players to understand when they are playing by the actual rules, and when they are playing by something else.

If you choose to treat fortifications as enemy vehicles for all rules purposes, that's up to you. It's a perfectly acceptable workaround for the current crapness of the existing rules. But it's still important to make the distinction that it isn't actually what the rules say, so that there is less confusion when someone comes along who does it differently.


You will get less opposition to a house rule if you actually explain it as such (Yeah, I play it this was because the actual rules don't work due to blah) rather than just trying to pass your modified rules off as actual rules.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I don't get this dread associated with just saying sure buildings are units just like vehicles are units, what is the point of maintaining this distinction if all it does is make the rules that much more of a mess.

There is no 'dread' involved. It's just helpful for players to understand when they are playing by the actual rules, and when they are playing by something else.

If you choose to treat fortifications as enemy vehicles for all rules purposes, that's up to you. It's a perfectly acceptable workaround for the current crapness of the existing rules. But it's still important to make the distinction that it isn't actually what the rules say, so that there is less confusion when someone comes along who does it differently.


You will get less opposition to a house rule if you actually explain it as such (Yeah, I play it this was because the actual rules don't work due to blah) rather than just trying to pass your modified rules off as actual rules.

I did.

it is also important to point that just saying "they're not units" really doesn't help anything. As the "it's not a unit" mindset makes things worse, because then you can't play with them by actual rules.


Buildings count as vehicles.
vehicles are units.
buildings count as units.
clearly RAW as the other way leads to madness and nothing working.

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.

 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.

sirlynchmob wrote:


it is also important to point that just saying "they're not units" really doesn't help anything. As the "it's not a unit" mindset makes things worse, because then you can't play with them by actual rules.


Buildings count as vehicles.
vehicles are units.
buildings count as units.
clearly RAW as the other way leads to madness and nothing working.

Buildings are not units. They are treated like vehicles in several situations but that does not mean they are treated as units in those situations.

 DJGietzen wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


it is also important to point that just saying "they're not units" really doesn't help anything. As the "it's not a unit" mindset makes things worse, because then you can't play with them by actual rules.


Buildings count as vehicles.
vehicles are units.
buildings count as units.
clearly RAW as the other way leads to madness and nothing working.

Buildings are not units. They are treated like vehicles in several situations but that does not mean they are treated as units in those situations.

^ 100% this.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

From this we know fortifications are not "Models" as the 40K rules define.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." (3)

Models must be organized into units, and since Fortifications are not models they can not be units either.

It's still strange that Models have Unit Types, but units don't.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


it is also important to point that just saying "they're not units" really doesn't help anything. As the "it's not a unit" mindset makes things worse, because then you can't play with them by actual rules.


Buildings count as vehicles.
vehicles are units.
buildings count as units.
clearly RAW as the other way leads to madness and nothing working.

Buildings are not units. They are treated like vehicles in several situations but that does not mean they are treated as units in those situations.

^ 100% this.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

From this we know fortifications are not "Models" as the 40K rules define.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." (3)

Models must be organized into units, and since Fortifications are not models they can not be units either.

Well how about you walk us through how the VWB shoots or get shot at then if they are absolute not, nor ever a unit?

sirlynchmob wrote:


Well how about you walk us through how the VWB shoots or get shot at then if they are absolute not, nor ever a unit?

Sure. The rules for buildings allow them to be shot at if they are occupied. The Sentry Defense System rule allows a building to be shot by enemy attacks even if its not occupied. Neither rule requires the building to be a unit. The Sentry Defense System rule also allows a building to shoot at enemy units.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well how about you walk us through how the VWB shoots or get shot at then if they are absolute not, nor ever a unit?

You can find the permission to fire on buildings on page 93.

BRB wrote:Units may shoot at or change an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle.

Permission to fire their weapons come from page 96.

BRB wrote:If the building is occupied, each emplaced weapon that is not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.

-Ninja'd

So we're just going to skip the entire shooting sequence?

step 1: choose one of your units

step 2:
A unit shoots an enemy unit it can see.
A unit shoots an enemy unit ie vehicle=enemy unit.
You shoot at a building as if it was a vehicle and get:
A unit shoots an enemy unit ie building=enemy unit.

same with assaulting:
you can assault a enemy unit.
move the inital charger into contace with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged.
vehicle=enemy unit.
You assault a building as if it was a vehicle and get:
building=enemy unit.

pg 93 tells us to treat the building like it was a vehicle it doesn't just say yes it can be shot or assaulted.

Either shooting with buildings can not be done, as they are not units. (Clearly not RAI as they talk about fortifications shooting in the BRB).

Or you choose the terrain feature you bought as a fortification in place of one of your units to make a shooting attack and the rest of the rules gel nicely.

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

...assuming that the rules are functional...



But I agree, the rules as written have no problem with shooting at or with fortifications, since the rules tell you how to do it..

 DeathReaper wrote:
Either shooting with buildings can not be done, as they are not units. (Clearly not RAI as they talk about fortifications shooting in the BRB).

Or you choose the terrain feature you bought as a fortification in place of one of your units to make a shooting attack and the rest of the rules gel nicely.

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.

I'm glad you're seeing sense now and realize your interpretation can not be correct.

As for how you play it, it needs a bit more than that for the assault phase to work as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

...assuming that the rules are functional...



But I agree, the rules as written have no problem with shooting at or with fortifications, since the rules tell you how to do it..

RAW works because vehicles are enemy units and models, so the shooting and assault rules works.

now substitute building for vehicle and the rules work.

the only targets for shooting and assaulting are units.

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.

 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.

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!

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.

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.

 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.

 Happyjew wrote:

barnowl wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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.

Not to derail too much... but if they published a new book for terrain rules, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.