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.

Just two quick questions for you guys.

1. Can you cast the invisibility psychic power on buildings?

2. If so does the models ontop on the battlement also get invisible?

 ThunderfireMac wrote:
Just two quick questions for you guys.

1. Can you cast the invisibility psychic power on buildings?

2. If so does the models ontop on the battlement also get invisible?

1. Off the top of my head, no. If I'm remembering correctly, buildings do not have a faction, thus can't have powers cast on them. (see allies matrix)

2. In case my first one is wrong; no. Units inside/on/around it would not. Invisibility targets one unit only. If it's on the building, a unit on top of the building is not part of the building's unit.
It's exactly the same as casting it on a vehicle; the unit that is inside would not have invisibility.

Ok thanks

1) yes. A building that you have claimed is a unit in your army for all intents and purposes. Just like a vehicle, you can make it invisible.

2) no. The building is the only unit affected

The important distinction is that a default Rule states 'All models on the same side are friendly models while another states that Claimed buildings are Units in the army and Fortifications become claimed at the beginning of the Game. The real question of 'does that make them friendly Models?' is much debated in other threads so do not expect a straight forth answer here. However! The lack of a faction on any Model does not hinder in any way, but is quite the benefit as it stops certain 'treat as enemies that can not be shot at' type of restrictions from applying.

Do also keep in mind that many Rules resolve themselves against buildings as if they where Vehicles, which also creates some very interesting discussions for the 'are they Models' debate...

For a more details, please Ctrl-F:
All models on the same side are friendly models - direct rule quote for default state of 'friendly'
Claiming Buildings - proving Buildings are Units
Allies of Convenience - Example of how the restriction over-writes the default 'friendly Models'

And then i pose the fluff question:

If the building is invisible, then when i shoot at the guys inside (whom I can now see clearly) do I still have to snap shot?


Of course I know the RAW way to play it, but seems like a valid counter to invisible bunkers.

No, just like you can't shoot at an embarked unit even if the vehicle is invisible.

However, you CAN shoot a blast weapon at something on an invisible building's battlements and it will hit the unit and the building. (BRB pg 112)

There's actually no rules that state you cannot shoot at an embarked unit.

it is just usually impossible because most weapons require Line of sight. Per the rules a weapon that does not require line of sight has no actual restriction within the rules on targeting an embarked unit.

Huh, never thought about invisible buildings... will have to figure out how to exploit that.

Blacktoof,
All because of a typo or an error in perspective from the author... it really is the inclusion of the word 'its' in the bracketed exception that causes problems.

blaktoof wrote:
There's actually no rules that state you cannot shoot at an embarked unit.

it is just usually impossible because most weapons require Line of sight. Per the rules a weapon that does not require line of sight has no actual restriction within the rules on targeting an embarked unit.

I'm not sure, but is it actually possible? There may be problems with positioning that unit and comprising models that IIRC is required to pull this off.

Since most weapons have maximum range, how do you measure range between shooter and targeted unit? Are you allowed to measure to transport/building they are embarked on, and if yes, why?

If that is possible, how to allocate wounds that unit takes from this attack, since models aren't even on board to follow through standard allocation of wounds from shooting attack?

Unless these questions have definite answers in rules, I don't think we can actually resolve such attack. Maybe we can if in addition to not requiring LoS it will also have infinite range (do we have to measure though, strictly speaking? maybe we must but just omit it in practice because comparing real measurement with "unlimited" in Range entry of that weapon profile will net practically predictable results?) and ability to pick particular model as a target.

What do you think?

Off-topic: as for fluff question above, Invisibility is a Telepathy power. We can assume that it does nothing to bend light or something of this sort, it just presumably forces a mind of observer to ignore the appearance of the target regardless if he could otherwise perceive it directly by his own senses, see it on auspex data feeds or by any other means. Therefore it's unlikely that building affected by invisibility will suddenly reveal its contents to observers as in reality walls and other elements of the building/vehicle will still block their senses.

blaktoof wrote:
There's actually no rules that state you cannot shoot at an embarked unit.

it is just usually impossible because most weapons require Line of sight. Per the rules a weapon that does not require line of sight has no actual restriction within the rules on targeting an embarked unit.

This would be a colossal waste of a shooting attack. From the allocating wounds section of the shooting sequence...

"If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it."
"If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost."

So, yeah, you could make an argument that you can fire at the unit... but you can't actually allocate a wound to any of the models in said unit.

Kriswall,
Which encountered the reverse problem, every weapon which have permission to ignores line of sight for targeting purposes fails to account for the Wounding process. The few that do still fail to account for the 'Empty-the-pool' instruction, triggering afterwards and still ending up with 0 Wounds allocated. This is why the whole situation sits in my 'Broken' Pile, next to the hole in the wall from the constant head pounding, and I simply use 'The Most Important Rule' to fix it all like we normally have to.

JinxDragon wrote:
Kriswall,
Which encountered the reverse problem, every weapon which have permission to ignores line of sight for targeting purposes fails to account for the Wounding process. The few that do still fail to account for the 'Empty-the-pool' instruction, triggering afterwards and still ending up with 0 Wounds allocated. This is why the whole situation sits in my 'Broken' Pile, next to the hole in the wall from the constant head pounding, and I simply use 'The Most Important Rule' to fix it all like we normally have to.

Can you give me some examples of weapons that ignore line of sight for both nominating targets AND allocating wounds? I can't think of any off the top of my head. I'd like to have a look at the relevant rules to see if this really is something that requires a preemptive house rule.

 Kriswall wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Kriswall,
Which encountered the reverse problem, every weapon which have permission to ignores line of sight for targeting purposes fails to account for the Wounding process. The few that do still fail to account for the 'Empty-the-pool' instruction, triggering afterwards and still ending up with 0 Wounds allocated. This is why the whole situation sits in my 'Broken' Pile, next to the hole in the wall from the constant head pounding, and I simply use 'The Most Important Rule' to fix it all like we normally have to.

Can you give me some examples of weapons that ignore line of sight for both nominating targets AND allocating wounds? I can't think of any off the top of my head. I'd like to have a look at the relevant rules to see if this really is something that requires a preemptive house rule.

Barrage weapons ignore both.

Tau SMS and Tyranid Impaler cannons suffer from the wound pool issue.

Would casting Invisibility on a building make the people inside immune to grenades and templates through fire points?

You have to snapfire at the invisable building. For template weapons this means you can't target the building but say an enemy unit was close to the building and you where able to place the template over both a firepoint on the building and as many models in that enemy unit as possible then you would still potentially hurt the embarked unit as well. For grenades being used as shooting attacks you will hit the building just fine if you roll well enough just like any other shooting attack. The grenades that can be used against vehicles and buildings as close combat attacks will would still hit automatically.

Fragile,
Barrage is not immune to this phenomenon. Permission to allocate Wounds using the centre of the marker is not permission to ignore a Rule stating those Wound are lost if there are no visible models. Barrage would gain that permission from the Blast Special Rule, which Barrage weapons also have access to. This is because Blast Markers have a 'Reminder' which directly addresses allocating Wounds regardless if there is Line of Sight. This reminder I have posted a copy of the clause below for review, but it is clearly evidence that Line of Sight ignoring weapons are meant to have some sort of clause for Wound purposes that many clearly lack:

.... Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.

Personally, I am not a strong voice on the matter as I believe the direct reference to the out-of-sight Rule, with the inclusion of a Must requirement, is enough to create a conflict. Others have voiced different opinions in the past though, such as the Pool emptying before the above clauses even get a chance as that would occur before a Wound from said Pool can be Allocated. No matter which way you look at it though, there is a huge glaring problem... regardless if they did it correctly or not, only Blast Markers address Wound allocation!

Every other Line of Sight ignoring Attack is out of luck....

What are some other attacks that do not require line of sight?

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
Barrage is not immune to this phenomenon. Permission to allocate Wounds using the centre of the marker is not permission to ignore a Rule stating those Wound are lost if there are no visible models. Barrage would gain that permission from the Blast Special Rule, which Barrage weapons also have access to. This is because Blast Markers have a 'Reminder' which directly addresses allocating Wounds regardless if there is Line of Sight. This reminder I have posted a copy of the clause below for review, but it is clearly evidence that Line of Sight ignoring weapons are meant to have some sort of clause for Wound purposes that many clearly lack:

.... Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.

Personally, I am not a strong voice on the matter as I believe the direct reference to the out-of-sight Rule, with the inclusion of a Must requirement, is enough to create a conflict. Others have voiced different opinions in the past though, such as the Pool emptying before the above clauses even get a chance as that would occur before a Wound from said Pool can be Allocated. No matter which way you look at it though, there is a huge glaring problem... regardless if they did it correctly or not, only Blast Markers address Wound allocation!

Every other Line of Sight ignoring Attack is out of luck....

Perhaps you should reread the question.

Fragile,
1) Your answer was incorrect
Barrage only changes where Line of Sight is drawn from when Allocating Wounds, it does not address Models outside of sight when it comes to Allocating these Wounds.
That would be covered by Blast, a completely different Rule then the one you named, which will always be on the weapon profile along side Barrage but is not dependent on Barrage

2) The matter is under debate
It is dishonest to simply state 'X can do Z' when some have debated that Z can never be reached because Y is in the way. While the Blast Rule does address Out of Sight, it is written so poorly that it might not actually prevent Out of Sight from emptying the Wound Pool. Many can put forth the argument that at least one Model needs to be visible still, in order to prevent the pool from emptying before you have permission to Allocate the Wounds. That would make Blast Markers just as impenitent when it comes to Wounding Units completely out-of-sight as every other Line-of-Sight ignoring weapon....

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
1) Your answer was incorrect
Barrage only changes where Line of Sight is drawn from when Allocating Wounds, it does not address Models outside of sight when it comes to Allocating these Wounds.
That would be covered by Blast, a completely different Rule then the one you named, which will always be on the weapon profile along side Barrage but is not dependent on Barrage

Perhaps you should read the first line of the barrage rule.

It makes your entire argument here pointless since Barrage uses the rules for Blast markers, with the stated exceptions.

Can you give me some examples of weapons that ignore line of sight for both nominating targets AND allocating wounds?

^^ Clearly you missed this question. ^^

Barrage weapons can fire indirectly. This means they can fire at a target that they do not have line of sight to,

In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat

The second rule is the blast aspect of the Barrage rule, but clearly Barrage can do both the things that the question asked for. The rest of your argument is just extraneous. Welcome back.

Maybe you should read what you have quoted again:
All Barrage weapons use blast markers and consequently use the rules for Blast weapons

This clause does not grant permission to access the Blast Special Rule, it simply states that Barrage weapons will use Blast Markers. As a consequence of using a Blast marker, the shot must have access to some sort of Blast Special Rule in order to inform us what marker to actually use. While it might not seem like much of a difference, and it really is a matter of schematics if Game Workshop doesn't screw up and somehow create a non-Blast Marker Barrage weapon, there is still a bit of a leap between 'uses Blast Markers and therefore does ignores line of sight for Wounds as a consequence' and 'Barrage itself ignores Line of sight for Wounds.' So stating Barrage can ignore Line of Sight for Wounding is incorrect, it is the Blast Special Rule on the profile which actually grants that.

Besides, have you thought about this huge negative if you where correct:
If these are instructions telling us that all Barrage Weapons use the Blast Special Rule, as opposed to just referencing the different markers themselves, then all Barrage weapons are restricted to the small marker regardless what is on the profile.
After all, the above does not reference the Large Blast Special Rule or the Apocalyptic Blast Special Rule, so it must be restricted to just the Blast Special Rule.

There is also the fact that Barrage is re-written in some codex's to the following:
All Barrage weapons use blast markers and consequently use the rules for Blast & Large Blast weapons, as indicated by their profile, with the following exceptions
This takes the time to specifically mention that the profile will contain the information needed to determine which Blast Special Rule is in effect... and how does it exactly do that I wonder?

Do need to point out some dishonesty in your posting style; In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat, is from the Blast Special Rule! Still I do have to admire how your post is formatted to make it appear as if you are quoting a line from the Barrage Rule. Would be so easy for people to read 'Blast aspect of the Barrage rule' as 'this is part of the Barrage Rule' given how you have put the two quotes back to back and credited both to Barrage.
Bravo....

Missed you too, Fragile.

Your entire post would have merit if you can find a non blast barrage weapon. Barrage clearly states it uses the rules for blasts. Because it does it clearly fits the question asked. Your arguing a non issue

Without referring to the Weapon profile, and thus using a different Rule entirely, what size marker do we use?

I brought up this mythical weapon of abomination for one reason: to state that pointing to the Clause you quoted would not be enough to inform us what marker to pick up. Enough to kick start a rant on how Game Workshop can make a Weapon which violates it's own Clauses, but not enough to allow me to pick up whatever sized marker I decided would be suitable. Very curiously, and I touched on it a little in the previous post, I can make the same argument in reverse without changing the core element of my interpretation but making your own a little more unstable.

The quoted Clause says that all barrage weapons will use Blast Markers and as a consequence will use the Rule for Blast weapons
There is only one marker named Blast, 3 Inches, as the rest are named Large Blast, Massive Blast and so forth
If the Clause is talking about applying the Blast Special Rule to all Barrage weapons, then we would only ever be able to use the 3 Inches... something we already know is incorrect as barrages use other sized Markers dependent on their profile.
If the Clause is simply stating that Barrage Weapons, not the Barrage Rule itself, will always have a version of Blast Special Rule attached to the profile... Game Workshop only needs to ensure the weapon profile grants access to a type of Blast marker for this Clause to be obeyed 100% of the time.