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.

Pyrian wrote:
I found the FAQ rather muddied the issue:

Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the
bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the
building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top
of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on
page 95.
Q. What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.

I knew I read the the battlements as not part of the building somewhere, just thought it was in the BRB.

And you are correct, it does seem to confuse the issue more.

I thin I wil just play them as ruins and keep it simple.

"A building with battlements is a multiple part building (see page 92) - essentially, one unit can go inside the building, and a different unit can be 'on top'of it (and so do not need to be taken off the board)." P.95

The battlements are not a separate building, as the Battlements do not have a transport capacity or an AV.

Units on top of the building are not embarked in the building they are simply on top of a building.

Playing it as a ruin solves nothing and is not correct RaW.

Playing it as models on top of a building is the correct way to play it.

Scattering Blast markers can affect a building because you are only disallowed from targeting an unoccupied building, you can still damage it, as it has an AV.

So, the unit gets hit, with cover applied by the battlements, if applicable.
The battlements themselves cannot be hit, as they are just on top of the building, being "separate from the building " and "not a building".
But, if the blast touches the level below, deal the hit there instead of the battlements.

But, if the building-level below is destroyed, what happens to the unit on top?

 Skinnereal wrote:
So, the unit gets hit, with cover applied by the battlements, if applicable.
The battlements themselves cannot be hit, as they are just on top of the building, being "separate from the building " and "not a building".
But, if the blast touches the level below, deal the hit there instead of the battlements.

But, if the building-level below is destroyed, what happens to the unit on top?

That depends on what you roll on the Building Damage table on P. 94, and consult P.95 for units on the battlements. (You do not roll on the vehicle damage table for buildings, use the one on P. 94 instead).

But you cannot attack an unoccupied building as per the rules on pg 93

AV is irrelevant, the rules are clear about this.

"You cannot attack an unoccupied building (with shooting or in close combat)."

A blast scattering on to an unoccupied building does nothing, it is as if you missed altogether unless the building has occupants.

Honestly, I think the whole 'You cannot assault or shoot at unoccupied building' is strictly to disallow wasting ammo and energy on -completely- empty buildings with no one on top. (The grenades-on-battlements paragraph does seem to suggest you can assault a building with someone on battlements, BTW)

Think about it: the moment someone is on the battlement, it's possible that an enemy unit's only recourse will be to powerklaw (or chainfist, or dreadnought CC weapon) their way through the building under. Then it's not wasted energy to try. I recommend players play it that way, it makes more sense than going 'oh, you are not allowed to assault the building under my troop with your anti tank melee armaments', which would be pretty nonsensical (not to mention an unpleasant WAAC move). Biggest point: the moment you disallow attacking buildings under busy battlements, you'll see most folks abuse it by covering their battlements in troops, putting no one inside, and doors out of reach, which would seriously hamper the fun of the game. (Blowing up buildings is fun!)

So, let's not get a 'you cannot assault or shoot the building' to muddle this. My humble opinion is with Fragile and Deathreaper. Unit on top would get cover save, the roof gets hit by a blast so the building also has to roll against its AV. Ruins don't work like that because they can't be destroyed by blasts. The 'grenades on battlements' causing the building a hit per grenade is the precedent that reinforces my opinion.

And in the hypothetical case where the building suffers a total collapse, here's what'd happen: First the unit on top suffers the blast. Survivors then suffer 2D6 S3 AP- hits from the 'total collapse' result. (damage reduced due to battlement rules) Then they must jump for it as per another battlement rule, rolling impact tests (no armor saves on those!) and finally emergency disembark, pray you have enough room for all the survivors down there.
Sadistic fun, innit?

40k-noob wrote:
But you cannot attack an unoccupied building as per the rules on pg 93

AV is irrelevant, the rules are clear about this.

"You cannot attack an unoccupied building (with shooting or in close combat)."

A blast scattering on to an unoccupied building does nothing, it is as if you missed altogether unless the building has occupants.

The underlined is not true.

"Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." P. 93 Attacking buildings section.

The quote you provided is also in the Attacking buildings section.

You cannot attack an unoccupied building, in context, means you can not shoot at an unoccupied building. A scattering blast still does its damage.

 Spacecat wrote:
Honestly, I think the whole 'You cannot assault or shoot at unoccupied building' is strictly to disallow wasting ammo and energy on -completely- empty buildings with no one on top. (The grenades-on-battlements paragraph does seem to suggest you can assault a building with someone on battlements, BTW)

Think about it: the moment someone is on the battlement, it's possible that an enemy unit's only recourse will be to powerklaw (or chainfist, or dreadnought CC weapon) their way through the building under. Then it's not wasted energy to try. I recommend players play it that way, it makes more sense than going 'oh, you are not allowed to assault the building under my troop with your anti tank melee armaments', which would be pretty nonsensical (not to mention an unpleasant WAAC move). The moment you disallow shooting buildings under battlements, you'll see most folks abuse it by covering their battlements in troops, putting no one inside, and doors out of reach, which woudl seriously hamper the fun of the game. (Blowing up buildings is fun!)

So, let's not get a 'you cannot assault or shoot the building' to muddle this. My humble opinion is with Fragile and Deathreaper. Unit on top would get cover save, the roof gets hit by a blast so the building also has to roll against its AV. Ruins don't work like that because they can't be destroyed by blasts. The 'grenades on battlements' causing the building a hit per grenade is the precedent that reinforces my opinion.

And in the hypothetical case where the building suffers a total collapse, here's what'd happen: First the unit on top suffers the blast. Survivors then suffer 2D6 S3 AP- hits from the 'total collapse' result. (damage reduced due to battlement rules) Then they must jump for it as per another battlement rule, rolling impact tests (no armor saves on those!) and finally emergency disembark, pray you have enough room for all the survivors down there.
Sadistic fun, innit?

oh sure why play by the rules and "muddle" this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
But you cannot attack an unoccupied building as per the rules on pg 93

AV is irrelevant, the rules are clear about this.

"You cannot attack an unoccupied building (with shooting or in close combat)."

A blast scattering on to an unoccupied building does nothing, it is as if you missed altogether unless the building has occupants.

The underlined is not true.

"Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." P. 93 Attacking buildings section.

The quote you provided is also in the Attacking buildings section.

You cannot attack an unoccupied building, in context, means you can not shoot at an unoccupied building. A scattering blast still does its damage.

No, you are incorrect. Whether intentional or not, scattering onto an unoccupied building is still shooting at that building and so you cannot do anything to it.

I've got to agree with DeathReaper, the context of not attacking the building is to prevent intentional attacks on an unoccupied building.
It doesn't say you can't damage an unoccupied build, just that you can't attack it.

 grendel083 wrote:
I've got to agree with DeathReaper, the context of not attacking the building is to prevent intentional attacks on an unoccupied building.
It doesn't say you can't damage an unoccupied build, just that you can't attack it.

That just doesn't make sense. You cannot damage something without attacking it.

The former is a result of the latter.

Again whether intentional or not, the rules are clear. No attacking an unoccupied building.

40k-noob wrote:
That just doesn't make sense. You cannot damage something without attacking it.

So an exploding tank is 'attacking' the unit around it?

A scattering blast is not targeted at the building. The unit that fired the blast wasn't attacking the building, it was attacking whatever it chose as a target. The building is just collateral damage.


As for the rest of this mess, I'm not really seeing any easy way to resolve it by the rules as they currently stand. The Bastion is a multi-part building, which should mean that each part is a separate building... but the FAQ says that no, the battlements are a separate part, but not a building. So there is no way provided by the rules to resolve damage against them. You can destroy the Bastion, but not the battlements.

 insaniak wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
That just doesn't make sense. You cannot damage something without attacking it.

So an exploding tank is 'attacking' the unit around it?

A scattering blast is not targeted at the building. The unit that fired the blast wasn't attacking the building, it was attacking whatever it chose as a target. The building is just collateral damage.


As for the rest of this mess, I'm not really seeing any easy way to resolve it by the rules as they currently stand. The Bastion is a multi-part building, which should mean that each part is a separate building... but the FAQ says that no, the battlements are a separate part, but not a building. So there is no way provided by the rules to resolve damage against them. You can destroy the Bastion, but not the battlements.

for the purposes of allocating wounds within the rules of this game, it can be interpreted that way, yes. But that is off topic and i will not go any into that any further.

Honestly, it is still part of the damage caused by the initial attack, like a domino effect.
An explosion, and any damage caused by it is still damage caused by the initial attack that caused the explosion.

As for the rest, I agree, it is a mess and the BRB has no rules for what happens if a blast scatters onto an unoccupied building. In the absence of specific rules, you must use what does exist in the BRB and that is clear, you cannot attack an unoccupied building, with shooting nor in close combat.
So if a blast lands on an empty building, what then? Either nothing happens or the game breaks

40k-noob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
That just doesn't make sense. You cannot damage something without attacking it.

So an exploding tank is 'attacking' the unit around it?

A scattering blast is not targeted at the building. The unit that fired the blast wasn't attacking the building, it was attacking whatever it chose as a target. The building is just collateral damage.


As for the rest of this mess, I'm not really seeing any easy way to resolve it by the rules as they currently stand. The Bastion is a multi-part building, which should mean that each part is a separate building... but the FAQ says that no, the battlements are a separate part, but not a building. So there is no way provided by the rules to resolve damage against them. You can destroy the Bastion, but not the battlements.

for the purposes of allocating wounds within the rules of this game, it can be interpreted that way, yes. But that is off topic and i will not go any into that any further.

Honestly, it is still part of the damage caused by the initial attack, like a domino effect.
An explosion, and any damage caused by it is still damage caused by the initial attack that caused the explosion.

As for the rest, I agree, it is a mess and the BRB has no rules for what happens if a blast scatters onto an unoccupied building. In the absence of specific rules, you must use what does exist in the BRB and that is clear, you cannot attack an unoccupied building, with shooting nor in close combat.
So if a blast lands on an empty building, what then? Either nothing happens or the game breaks

Are you allowed to shoot your own troops?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Are you allowed to shoot your own troops?

A good point... to a degree.

If a blast scattering onto something counts as 'attacking' it, then you would be unable to resolve damage against your own models caught under a scattering blast... except that the Blast rules make a specific exception in that situation, and tell us to resolve that damage.

There is no such exception for buildings. I would still be inclined to follow the same rules, as that's what makes the most sense to me, but I could very easily see GW FAQing it to ignore the damage.

Then again, going by the inexplicable rules changes so soon after release so far, I could just as easily see them FAQing it to say that the building counts as a large doughnut and shouldn't be attacked under any circumstances for fear of incurring the wrath of the Chaos God 'Prrrky'. Makes as much sense as the current ruling on Bastions.

 insaniak wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Are you allowed to shoot your own troops?

A good point... to a degree.

If a blast scattering onto something counts as 'attacking' it, then you would be unable to resolve damage against your own models caught under a scattering blast... except that the Blast rules make a specific exception in that situation, and tell us to resolve that damage.

There is no such exception for buildings. I would still be inclined to follow the same rules, as that's what makes the most sense to me, but I could very easily see GW FAQing it to ignore the damage.

Then again, going by the inexplicable rules changes so soon after release so far, I could just as easily see them FAQing it to say that the building counts as a large doughnut and shouldn't be attacked under any circumstances for fear of incurring the wrath of the Chaos God 'Prrrky'. Makes as much sense as the current ruling on Bastions.

Well I thought I remembered a specific exception allowing you to wound/hit if scattered. However I don't see anything saying I can't hurt a building by scattering on top of it. Just that I cannot target it.

Kind of falls in the same Category of Eldar+ DE IC and using Fortune.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no such exception for buildings.

Except they are treated as vehicles. Can you scatter on to your own vehicle and damage it ?

You can scatter onto your own vehicle and damage it, yes. You can also scatter onto an enemy vehicle and damage it.

An unoccupied building is not yours. Nor is it an enemy unit.

A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the
building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top
of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on
page 95.

k, the FAQ explains the situation pretty well, I don't see how it muddles the question at all. Its separate from the building, ergo it works the same way as ruins, either hit the units on top of the building or hit the building.... in a real life scenario this doesn't make sense, but just chalk it up on the board with the rest of rulings that don't make logical sense in 40k. All battlements are, is cover. its not the building itself, but a separate object that sits on top of the building for rules purposes, effectively creating a second tier comparable to ruins in this case. Its easy to show visually:


||unit in the battlements[u]||
| |
| |
|building in question|
| |
[u]| | or.....


======= =large blast template
U =unit in the battlements
B =building in question

they sit on top of one another, so they are treated the same way as multi tiered. Templates only hit one tier, so you pick one. Simple. Easy. Clear. Done. SMH at the unnecessary posts in YMDC.

1) "Templates only hit one tier" is for ruins, the bastion is not a multi-level ruin.

2) The Blast Marker is not a template.

overlordweasel wrote:
k, the FAQ explains the situation pretty well, I don't see how it muddles the question at all. Its separate from the building, ergo it works the same way as ruins, either hit the units on top of the building or hit the building....

Except that there is no rule that says to treat it as ruins.

The Bastion is a multi-part building, made up of the main chamber and the battlements, which are each separate parts of the biulding, and by the original rules each count as a separate building in their own right. So if you hit the battlements, you just treat it as a regular hit against a building.

The FAQ muddies the situation by making the battlements no longer count as a building. So they are separate from the main part of the Bastion, because the FAQ says so and because the Bastion is a multi-part building. But it's a multi-part building that is now composed of a building (the main chamber) and the battlements, which are no longer considered to be a building... So if you hit the battlements there is no way to resolve the damage, because the rules don't cover how to resolve damage against a building that isn't a building.


If they had just left the battlements as per the rulebook, this wouldn't be an issue. You would resolve damage against them exactly the same way you would against any other building.

40k-noob wrote:
But you cannot attack an unoccupied building as per the rules on pg 93

AV is irrelevant, the rules are clear about this.

"You cannot attack an unoccupied building (with shooting or in close combat)."

A blast scattering on to an unoccupied building does nothing, it is as if you missed altogether unless the building has occupants.

You also can't attack yourself, but if a blast marker covers your guys, you get hit. Why would it be different for buildings?

Because buildings have different rules, as I already pointed out...

 insaniak wrote:
Because buildings have different rules, as I already pointed out...

So how would suggest handling all of this? I know you answered some of this already, but I'm seeking clarity too.

Krak missile hits squad on battlements... What all is affected?

Only a squad on battlements... Can I target the building or not?

Two tier building,... Targeting squad on higher tier, scatters to squad on lower tier... What all is it resolved against?

Missile scatters off battlements and over squad not in or on building and 7" below battlements. How is affected here?

Thanks in advance.

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Because buildings have different rules, as I already pointed out...

So how would suggest handling all of this? I know you answered some of this already, but I'm seeking clarity too.

Krak missile hits squad on battlements... What all is affected? Did you mean Frag? Krak doesn't use Blast Markers. If Frag, just the unit, unless the building is also occupied by another unit. If occupied, then everything under the blast marker is hit, the unit and building.

Only a squad on battlements... Can I target the building or not? See above.

Two tier building,... Targeting squad on higher tier, scatters to squad on lower tier... What all is it resolved against? Still all one building think Bastion two tier doesnt matter unless it is multipart building like the Fortress. If multipart and it scatters to the unoccupied section of the building then nothing happens.

Missile scatters off battlements and over squad not in or on building and 7" below battlements. How is affected here? Good question, I have no answer for this one. Inclined to play it as a miss

Thanks in advance.

See bold answers, that is how I would play it.

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Because buildings have different rules, as I already pointed out...

So how would suggest handling all of this? I know you answered some of this already, but I'm seeking clarity too.

Krak missile hits squad on battlements... What all is affected? Krak is not a blast marker so it hits the unit you are targeting. If it were a blast marker it hits everything it covers.

Only a squad on battlements... Can I target the building or not? If the building is occupied you can target the building, I would be inclined to let you target a building if my guys were on the roof and the inside was empty.

Two tier building,... Targeting squad on higher tier, scatters to squad on lower tier... What all is it resolved against? The blast marker hits whatever it covers as buildings are not ruins.

Missile scatters off battlements and over squad not in or on building and 7" below battlements. How is affected here? The blast marker hits whatever it covers as buildings are not ruins.

Thanks in advance.

I would play it as the underlined above.

I agree with DR.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Because buildings have different rules, as I already pointed out...

So how would suggest handling all of this? I know you answered some of this already, but I'm seeking clarity too.

Krak missile hits squad on battlements... What all is affected? Krak is not a blast marker so it hits the unit you are targeting. If it were a blast marker it hits everything it covers.

Only a squad on battlements... Can I target the building or not? If the building is occupied you can target the building, I would be inclined to let you target a building if my guys were on the roof and the inside was empty.

Two tier building,... Targeting squad on higher tier, scatters to squad on lower tier... What all is it resolved against? The blast marker hits whatever it covers as buildings are not ruins.

Missile scatters off battlements and over squad not in or on building and 7" below battlements. How is affected here? The blast marker hits whatever it covers as buildings are not ruins.

Thanks in advance.

I would play it as the underlined above.

This is how I plan on playing it in the future, if it ever comes up.

40k-noob wrote:
Still all one building think Bastion two tier doesnt matter unless it is multipart building like the Fortress. If multipart and it scatters to the unoccupied section of the building then nothing happens.

The Bastion is a multipart building.

...Where the other part of the multi-part building "are treated as being separate from the building itself" and "are not a building." So, they're a multi-part building except for pretty much all of the relevant rules.

Which is exactly the problem. It's a multi-part building, so hits on the battlements will only affect the battlements, not the rest of the building. But as the battlements are not a building, there is no way to resolve the damage against them.


So to answer the question from before, the way I would play it is to not use Bastions or anything else with battlements until GW sorts their gak out.