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.

Can enemy units come within 1" of a building I am occupying or have claimed? It says buildings are treated like vehicles, so I'm kind of assuming that means the standard 1" buffer unless your in assault.

A very complicated matter that stems from the question 'Are Claimed Buildings Models?' and one I would love to have a solid answer for.

The fact that I have spent at least a year researching Buildings for this site, aspects of them have been re-written at least four times over two Editions, should tell you how problematic the above question really is. It could be the shear number of Rules which exist, no longer exist, and then exist once more making it very difficult to get a straight answer or just bad Rule writing but it is quite confusing. All I can do is point out that these Rules would not need to exist if Buildings where Models by default, so we can not rule them as Models by default, and then admit that I honestly do not know what the Authors intend for us to do with Buildings and their "Model Status." At least outside of the Count as Clauses already addressed in the Rule Book.

However, the real head scratching comes not from the Count as Clauses but a single line stating that Buildings are Units....

As the 'counts as a Vehicle' Clauses all contain limitations built in, preventing us from applying them to all situations, they can not be universally applied. For example: Resolving a Special Rule allows us to treat the Building as a Vehicle, but if we are resolving a Basic Rule we wouldn't have access to that particular clause, though another probably exists. As we are only apply these clauses in the documented situations, we can not simply apply the Vehicle Unit Type to the Building in question and call it a Model.

That is before we even question how a Rule mentioning nothing about Unit Types would grant a new Unit Type to begin with, simply by allowing other/secondary Rules to treat X as Y.

As we have a definition of Unit which directly relates to Models... that makes the 'Buildings are Units' Clause very difficult to understand. We are informed that Units consist of Models but in this situation we have the Unit Status being granted to something which contains 0 actual Models. It is entirely possible that the Authors only intended for it to be a Unit for Rules which interact with something at the "Unit level," such as nominating an Enemy Unit to shoot at, with all "Model-level" rules remaining unchanged but we need more clarification to be certain. It is equally possible that the Authors simply intended for Claimed Buildings to become Models, and all the Count as Clauses exist to deal with Buildings yet to be Claimed....

I honestly do not know and anyone who tells you they have deciphered it needs to be sent my way post haste....

That said, I'm going with yes. It appears that only unclaimed Building are not "units", while Buildings filling a Fortification slot are indeed "units" in that army for at least some rules (although not all).

SJ

Jeffersonian000,
I disagree with your 'while Buildings filling a Fortification slot are indeed "units" in that army for at least some rules (although not all).' line. The Rule granting Unit status does not contain instructions that would allow us to ignore the Unit status in certain situations. In order for us to be able to apply the Rule to a handful of situations, but claim that it can never be applied to all, we will need something informing us when and how we go about applying the Clause in question. As the Rule simply states that Claimed Buildings are Units, in all situations the Claimed Building is a Unit.

Still leaning towards it being a Unit which contains 0 Models myself, so the 1 inch Rule does not apply as it triggers off Models.

The main problem, and probably main reason why they keep using "count as" rather than saying it IS a Unit, is that Units will ultimately belong to one "Side".
As you are able to claim Buildings, the antics about you loosing a Unit and the enemy "gaining" a Unit would complicate things tenfold....

I'd go with: Building are Units and they are Models, but have never, and will never be defined as such.

Things like:"If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models."

"as the other models" is very very hard to read as "building is not a model, but...."

Do Buildings purchased in your army contest Objectives? Can a Building use a Comms Rely? Per the Building rules, unless occupied by an enemy unit, a Building is a member of the purchaser's army.

SJ

Raw no you can't unless your assaulting, or you go onto the battlements where you are given explicit permission.

but as jinxdragon says their too many self conflicting rule sets involved with buildings and the pseudo model thing. just agree with your opponent
or if your basing a tournament strategy on it get the TO to email you prior to the event.