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.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the only differences stated are buildings don't move & either side can enter. Other than that it is treated in all ways like a transport vehicle.

Can a psycher target the transport he's in? Yep.

Can I get a citation for the underlined text, I can't seem to find those words in the building rules...

It is a unit, that's why they added more advanced rules for these models to deny the permission that was given in the general rules.
It is more than just a piece of terrain, It's a building, and it's a friendly fortification, and if it's not a unit, then you can't shoot them or assault them anyways. The target of shooting attacks are units, (pg 13 which models can fire) and you only assault units (pg 20 declare charge)
So I think my argument make the most sense on how to handle these things.
Thanks for your input and help with this.

Where does it say that the terrain is a unit, you still have not proven that.

It can be shot because there is an allowance in the building rules to shoot it.

It can be assaulted because there is an allowance in the building rules to assault it.

Just claiming it is a unit without any rules backing does not make any sense.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the only differences stated are buildings don't move & either side can enter. Other than that it is treated in all ways like a transport vehicle.

Can a psycher target the transport he's in? Yep.

Can I get a citation for the underlined text, I can't seem to find those words in the building rules...

It is a unit, that's why they added more advanced rules for these models to deny the permission that was given in the general rules.
It is more than just a piece of terrain, It's a building, and it's a friendly fortification, and if it's not a unit, then you can't shoot them or assault them anyways. The target of shooting attacks are units, (pg 13 which models can fire) and you only assault units (pg 20 declare charge)
So I think my argument make the most sense on how to handle these things.
Thanks for your input and help with this.

Where does it say that the terrain is a unit, you still have not proven that.

It can be shot because there is an allowance in the building rules to shoot it.

It can be assaulted because there is an allowance in the building rules to assault it.

Just claiming it is a unit without any rules backing does not make any sense.

It can easily be inferred,

Fine you have permission to shoot it,
does the target unit get to take a save?
do you allocate to the closest model?
if there's no visible model in the target unit to see (rules wise) wouldn't the wound pool just empty?

so you assault
is there a nearest enemy model in the unit?
is there a model to get into B2B with?
can you be engaged with an enemy model or would the assaulting unit just be unengaged?
is there a model for wounds to be allocated to?

So yes it easy to say a building that counts as a transport can also therefore count as a model and a unit. I've seen people make more obtuse statements around here with less rules.
and this is how I shall "house rule" it, even though it is enough for me to even declare, yes it is RAW.

Fayric wrote:Are we still arguing about buildings as units?
How about page109, under "fortifications":
"Unlike units, fortifications are not found in codexes [...]"

Good catch

sirlynchmob wrote:SO lets start thinking of it as more the vehicle, than a building. anything you can do to a vehicle you can also do to a building.

Excellent. So as well as being able to shoot my opponent's troops, I can move my Vengeance Battery up to 12" each turn?

 insaniak wrote:

Fayric wrote:Are we still arguing about buildings as units?
How about page109, under "fortifications":
"Unlike units, fortifications are not found in codexes [...]"

Good catch

sirlynchmob wrote:SO lets start thinking of it as more the vehicle, than a building. anything you can do to a vehicle you can also do to a building.

Excellent. So as well as being able to shoot your opponent's troops, I can move my Vengeance Battery up to 12" each turn?

You can house rule it anyway you want to for these things to work. Knock yourself out.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can house rule it anyway you want to for these things to work. Knock yourself out.

There is no house rule there.

If you are assuming that the Fortification is a unit, then it has permission to move in the movement phase..
If you are assuming that the Fortification follows all of the vehicle rules except for those specifically mentioned, then that movement is up to 12", as that is the normal movement for vehicles.


But thanks to Fayric's quote, it's a non-issue. Fortifications are not units.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can house rule it anyway you want to for these things to work. Knock yourself out.

There is no house rule there.

If you are assuming that the Fortification is a unit, then it has permission to move in the movement phase..
If you are assuming that the Fortification follows all of the vehicle rules except for those specifically mentioned, then that movement is up to 12", as that is the normal movement for vehicles.


But thanks to Fayric's quote, it's a non-issue. Fortifications are not units.

And not moving is specifically mentioned as one of the 2 main differences between buildings and vehicles.
It's no longer an assumption, I've declared it to be true. I think it is the simplest and easiest way for these new buildings to work. Instead of just saying "oh you paid points for that, did you know it doesn't do anything?"

Or would you like to go through and answer all the questions I posted about shooting & assaulting? then we can get into lance, blasts, meltas and other weapons that only affect vehicles.

sirlynchmob wrote:
And not moving is specifically mentioned as one of the 2 main differences between buildings and vehicles.

So it is. Early morning, still on my first coffee

Instead of just saying "oh you paid points for that, did you know it doesn't do anything?"

Nobody was suggesting this. Just as nobody would actually have an issue with Shrike infiltrating with a unit, despite that also technically being illegal. Sometimes, GW writes crap rules, that's all.

The point of discussions like this isn't to stop people from using stuff when everyone can see how it is supposed to work. It's just to bring attention to the fact that in this situation, the rules as they are written don't actually work the way people assume.

Or would you like to go through and answer all the questions I posted about shooting & assaulting? then we can get into lance, blasts, meltas and other weapons that only affect vehicles.

We already dealt with that pages ago. You're specifically given permission to attack them in certain situations.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
And not moving is specifically mentioned as one of the 2 main differences between buildings and vehicles.

So it is. Early morning, still on my first coffee

Instead of just saying "oh you paid points for that, did you know it doesn't do anything?"

Nobody was suggesting this. Just as nobody would actually have an issue with Shrike infiltrating with a unit, despite that also technically being illegal. Sometimes, GW writes crap rules, that's all.

The point of discussions like this isn't to stop people from using stuff when everyone can see how it is supposed to work. It's just to bring attention to the fact that in this situation, the rules as they are written don't actually work the way people assume.

Or would you like to go through and answer all the questions I posted about shooting & assaulting? then we can get into lance, blasts, meltas and other weapons that only affect vehicles.

We already dealt with that pages ago. You're specifically given permission to attack them in certain situations.

And those "certain" situations cover the entire game except just your moving phase really. You can charge buildings a building like a transport, but what about in your assault phase, ongoing combat? or it's not a vehicle at that time? During all that time they are treated as vehicles so there is really no difference to just also say, they're also models & units. While they might not technically be a unit, they count as one often enough so it's more true than not.

sirlynchmob wrote:
And those "certain" situations cover the entire game except just your moving phase really. You can charge buildings a building like a transport, but what about in your assault phase, ongoing combat? or it's not a vehicle at that time? During all that time they are treated as vehicles so there is really no difference to just also say, they're also models & units. While they might not technically be a unit, they count as one often enough so it's more true than not.

Except it doesn't cover the entire game outside the movement phase. You are given permission to attack buildings... but only when they are occupied. Counting them as a unit would render that permission redundant, as you would then have permission to attack them anyway, occupied or not.

Where you find yourself standing in a hole in the rules, the best solution is always the one that requires the fewest house rules to carry out. Since counting the building as a unit causes several issues, the cleaner solution is to simply assume that the Vengeance targets your opponent's units.

Or, as I've stated in other threads, to just not use fortifications until GW gets around to writing complete rules for them.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
And those "certain" situations cover the entire game except just your moving phase really. You can charge buildings a building like a transport, but what about in your assault phase, ongoing combat? or it's not a vehicle at that time? During all that time they are treated as vehicles so there is really no difference to just also say, they're also models & units. While they might not technically be a unit, they count as one often enough so it's more true than not.

Except it doesn't cover the entire game outside the movement phase. You are given permission to attack buildings... but only when they are occupied. Counting them as a unit would render that permission redundant, as you would then have permission to attack them anyway, occupied or not.

Where you find yourself standing in a hole in the rules, the best solution is always the one that requires the fewest house rules to carry out. Since counting the building as a unit causes several issues, the cleaner solution is to simply assume that the Vengeance targets your opponent's units.

Or, as I've stated in other threads, to just not use fortifications until GW gets around to writing complete rules for them.

Unless they're planning for a fortifications book, waiting for complete rules could take a while.

It'll be quicker if people stop buying the damn things until GW gets their act together.


A guy can dream, right...?

 insaniak wrote:
It'll be quicker if people stop buying the damn things until GW gets their act together.


A guy can dream, right...?

It's entirely possible they're working on one. They did put out a book just for fliers.

But this thing just sound like fun 20 shots for 75 points.

And I think the rules for deploying should be enough to prevent some of the weird things people might try to pull with them.

If nothing else, it is a friendly fortification to your army, and their army is the enemy.

sirlynchmob wrote:
If nothing else, it is a friendly fortification to your army, and their army is the enemy.

This is the best house rule my group has come up with as well.

HIWPI the Emplaced Weapons will autofire at the nearest unit from your opponents force that is in range and Line of Sight.

That is the only house rule needed to make the Vengeance weapon battery work.

Of course you can never destroy it so having an AV is redundant, but that is a separate issue altogether.

There still is the possibility of damaging the weapons, rendering it useless. In order to see if that possibility is achieved you will need an Armour Value to roll against. Without one there would be no permission granted to roll on the building damage table, or the opposite of every shot allowing you to roll on it. It would be one of those completely ruleless situations if it wasn't for the Armour Value telling us what number we need to exceed in order to have a penetrating hit.

There is a little concern, though it is a weak argument if you ask me, because the damage table uses words like 'in addition' and 'furthermore' when it comes to damaging the building. This raises the possibility that none of the damage results can be applied to any building that is not occupied, because you can not carry out the initial damage part of the rule. In the case of the weapon battery, it could never be damaged, simply because it can never be occupied, and you need an unit inside to resolve damage against.

After all, if you do not meet the requirements for the initial part of any rules do you still have permission to carry out any additional effect that rule has?

As before stated, and can never be said enough, Fortification rules are completely broken. If you plan to use any fortification, particularly this weapon battery that makes a bigger mess of these sort of things, inform your opponent and tournament organizers first. You will have to smooth out the wrinkles yourself and this can only be done as long as both opponents, or organizer, agree to play with the modified rule-set.