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.

Kommissar Kel,
There should not be the possibility of active weapons; any fortifications that are not purchased as part of an army list will have Rules preventing them from having working weapons.

JinxDragon wrote:
Kommissar Kel,
There should not be the possibility of active weapons; any fortifications that are not purchased as part of an army list will have Rules preventing them from having working weapons.

From the SA book, under updated building rules:

Unclaimed Buildings

An unclaimed building follows all the normal rules for buildings and so cannot fire any weapons or be targeted by any players’ attacks. Note that, in most circumstances, unclaimed buildings are also dilapidated fortifications and so cannot normally fire any emplaced weapons they may have anyway (unless you and your opponent agree otherwise, of course).

Also the rule you are thinking of is for dilapidated Fortifications. If you and your opponent agree, then you can have a standard non-owned fortification(or just a building of some sort with emplaced weapons) as a terrain peice following either the brb standard or SA rules.

Kel,
Of course, but if your opponent agrees to it then you could pop down the death star and try to do a trench run with Hel-drakes.

JinxDragon wrote:
Kel,
Of course, but if your opponent agrees to it then you could pop down the death star and try to do a trench run with Hel-drakes.

Excepting that these rules are written into the rules.

Pre-SA the building had to be occupied to shoot, get shot, or get assaulted; after SA it needs only be claimed by being occupied at some point.

And a bunker with a gun emplacement has always been a legal building, with rules.

Hey people, why are you debating rules in this thread, post the rule that causes controversy and leave, do not reply or debate the rule if you lot want to do it go and make a thread or PM each other, people like myself want to come to this thread see what rules may cause issue and all im seeing is 3/4 messages and then a load of rules debates....

Kel,
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the general view of this forum to debate the default rules found in the Book and leave the two players to make up whatever agreements they wish?
After all, the 'Golden Rule' right at the start says the same thing about any rule in this book.

Added:
Good point Formosa, I will refrain from posting more on this thread.

 Janthkin wrote:
This thread is getting WAY off-topic. Do NOT use it to discuss the rules themselves; that you want to argue about them is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that they belong on the OP's list of controversial rules.

Quoting.