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.

It's been a week now, so lets talk about the Vengeance weapon battery. Here we have a automatic emplaced weapon on a impassible building that no one can enter. So if terrain is by default neutral, (as I've seen others argue about kill points and the ADL quad gun) than who does the gun shoot at?

A) I bought, It's with us, it fires at the other guy only.
B) It's neutral, it has no enemies, so it doesn't shoot anything.
C) It fires on each players turn at the opposing player.
D) Something else.

It's special rule: Sentry defense system: A building with this special rule can use automated fire against enemy units and be targeted by enemy attacks even if it is unoccupied.

Now if we consider "A" as the best option, would we be safe to say that the building is a unit in your army, so would it also give up a kill point.

I ranked them in the order I feel the should be played.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Now if we consider "A" as the best option, would we be safe to say that the building is a unit in your army, so would it also give up a kill point.

Does it have a unit type?

Well, since its on *my* list, and not my opponent's, and my units would not be legal to be targeted, I would therefore assume my opponent's units would be the enemy that the rules refer to.

The Vengeance Weapon Battery is clearly broken, I don't think that can be said enough, but I will try and focus on just the victory point issue as we don't have all day to discuss every issue this fortification brings with it.

From a pure rule as written interpretation there is no grounds for you to claim a victory point for 'destroying' it. Buildings do not meet the requirements to be considered a model, let alone a unit, which is a requirement before a victory point can be rewarded. Without a special rule stating the Vengeance Battery counts for a victory point, there is nothing giving a player permission to reward themselves with a point for "destroying" it. Should you want to change this fact for the Vengeance Weapon Battery you will need to discuss with your opponent when these victory points are to be rewarded, and I suggest talking to your opponent anyway as the battery is 'rules as intended' territory to begin with.

Readers might wonder why I have put destroyed in quotation marks and I would also like to bring something else to everyones attention:

You can never destroy buildings. Page 92, second paragraph on the left, last bold section highlights the fact they do not have hull points and can never be destroyed. If you then review the building damage table, and I will ignore another problem with this table when being applied to the weapon battery for now, you will see something interesting on all the entries we would consider to be 'building destroying.' The worse case situation for a building, such as detonation, simply turns it into an 'impassable building' without removing the building section from play. This is even more telling when comparing it to the Vengeance Weapon Battery, as it is already an impassable building so this part of the damage results is completely irrelevant.

It does destroy the emplaced guns as well, so the battery will no longer be able to fire, but the battery itself is never destroyed!

ok. and this argument changes nothing. Bastions and Fortresses don't give up VPs either, do they? and at least one drops huge blasts as well.

So I don't see where you have a point here...

The automated fire will not fire at your non Battle Brother allies.

Only your units treat non BB allies as enemy units. terrain does not.

That said the Emplaced weapons are broken as the terrain has no enemies and as such the terrain will not fire at anything.

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

so an unattended quad gun or bastion can't fire because no one is its enemy?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
so an unattended quad gun or bastion can't fire because no one is its enemy?

That's correct. Quad Guns can only fire if they are manned, and Bastions can only fire their emplaced weapons if a unit is embarked.

That's all covered by the Fortification rules. Although it's not so much that it doesn't have defined enemies as simply that there is no permission for them to fire unless there is a controlling unit involved.

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

Why nearest?

Because the rules for the battery say it's nearest.

EDIT:
Rather the rules for Automated Fire say it's nearest.

Ah yes thought that was only in the Firestorm rules as they specify nearest. Forgot the automated weapons rules have the same specification.

@JinxDragon Those are great points, ok I can see how they wouldn't count for kill points.

But it can be considered RAW that they count as a unit.

if we look at pg 3 other important information. We see tanks are not considered models per say. But under units, a single powerful model such as a tank is a unit in it's own right

But tanks don't have a unit type on pg 44, on pg 77 for squadrons we again see vehicles are considered models and a squadron is a unit.

Then on pg 92 "the main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move, and units from either side can go inside"

so as that is the main difference, it is not unreasonable or outside RAW to consider a building a unit. And if it's a unit in your army, that would solve the issue of who it shoots and keep the other guy from saying "hey look at that building you brought, it's going to shoot you now."

I THINK this may be relevant: The controlling player is always the player who 'owns'the model in question - the one who has included it in his army. The opposing player is always his opponent.

I know it doesn't literally state the opposing player is the enemy as defined in the rule so i am not sure how much relevance this has for a PURE raw interpretation, but I think that if you discuss it with your opponent that rules should convince most reasonable players that the model at least belongs to you.

sirlynchmob wrote:
if we look at pg 3 other important information. We see tanks are not considered models per say. But under units, a single powerful model such as a tank is a unit in it's own right

There is nothing on page 3 that suggests that a tank is not a model.

But tanks don't have a unit type on pg 44,

It also explains on that page that this is because vehicles are covered in their own section...

so as that is the main difference, it is not unreasonable or outside RAW to consider a building a unit....

...other than the fact that it doesn't have a profile, doesn't have a unit type, and is never defined as a unit.

I did some more reading and came up with the following:

The controlling player is always the player who 'owns'the model in question - the one who has included it in his army. The opposing player is always his opponent.

In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. - This rule implies that all models you put on the table are units inferred in part from the next rule.

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat - This rule basicly implies two things, the basic rule above that all models are grouped into units and That you control all models you put on the table.

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models. > The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in the entry for the unit in their relevant Warhammer 40,000 codex. - Nothing contradicts the fact that a fortification is a unit so far.

During the Shooing phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be norninated to make shooting attacks - This implies that you need to actually say that your fortification will shoot and then use its advanced rule to target the nearest enemy player.

We have already established that so far the fortification is a unit and you are the controlling player. for the shooting phase it then goes on to say in the side bar.

Choose one of YOUR units that is able to but has not yet, fired this turn. - this implies that as the controlling player you nominate your unit to fire. As it is yours it can only shoot at units your opponent controlls.

each player receives l Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed - Now under the basic rules it would give you a killpoint for beeing a unit. but its advanced rules tell you it CANNOT be completely destroyed, as pointed out above. and thus awards no victory point

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
if we look at pg 3 other important information. We see tanks are not considered models per say. But under units, a single powerful model such as a tank is a unit in it's own right

There is nothing on page 3 that suggests that a tank is not a model.

But tanks don't have a unit type on pg 44,

It also explains on that page that this is because vehicles are covered in their own section...

so as that is the main difference, it is not unreasonable or outside RAW to consider a building a unit....

...other than the fact that it doesn't have a profile, doesn't have a unit type, and is never defined as a unit.

if a tank is a model, then so is a building.
buildings have profiles, that's how you know what armor values they have. It has a unit type of: transport vehicle. pg 70 type: transport.

You would think not being a unit, nor a model, or not having a profile would be a pretty significant difference. But the only difference they mention is: they don't move & either side can enter. Other than that they are functionally identical to transport vehicles.

NickOnwezen wrote:
We have already established that so far the fortification is a unit ...

No you haven't. You have established that nothing says it isn't. There is also nothing that says it isn't a blueberry pie... but that doesn't mean that it is.

Nothing has been provided that establishes that a terrain piece should ever be considered a unit.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
if we look at pg 3 other important information. We see tanks are not considered models per say. But under units, a single powerful model such as a tank is a unit in it's own right

There is nothing on page 3 that suggests that a tank is not a model.

But tanks don't have a unit type on pg 44,

It also explains on that page that this is because vehicles are covered in their own section...

so as that is the main difference, it is not unreasonable or outside RAW to consider a building a unit....

...other than the fact that it doesn't have a profile, doesn't have a unit type, and is never defined as a unit.

if a tank is a model, then so is a building.
buildings have profiles, that's how you know what armor values they have. It has a unit type of: transport vehicle. pg 70 type: transport.

You would think not being a unit, nor a model, or not having a profile would be a pretty significant difference. But the only difference they mention is: they don't move & either side can enter. Other than that they are functionally identical to transport vehicles.

Buildings do not have a profile. They have a specified AV based on the type of building. Where does it say that buildings have a unit type of "Vehicle (Transport)"?

Basic Rules apply to all models, All models are sorted into units is pretty speccific in my opinion. Not to mention that it says that a buildings rules are functionatlly identical to a transport with the following two exceptions It doesnt move and either side can enter. the last part of which is ignored by the vengeance batteries own advanced rule that no one can enter it.

my mistake there it says:

Pg 92. "Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicie rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't mnove, and units from either side can go inside. To make use of these rules effectively, you'll have to agree the building's Transport Capaciry and Armour Values. You'll note that buildings don't use Hull Points and can't be completely destroyed. They can, however, be damaged to the point that it's impossible for anyone to enter them."

It still however does not state that it does not follow the rule of a transport that makes it a unit.

However i hillariously also conclude that every building, including normal scenery is a unit with no controlling player because of this. which is kinnd of hillarious.

sirlynchmob wrote:
if a tank is a model, then so is a building.

Why?

buildings have profiles, that's how you know what armor values they have.

No, they don't. They just have an armour value.

It has a unit type of: transport vehicle. pg 70 type: transport.

Again, no, it doesn't.

The ruels say that embarking and disembarking works the same for buildings as for transport vehicles. They do []not[/i] define the building as a vehicle type.

Other than that they are functionally identical to transport vehicles.

Yes, other than being different, they are exactly the same...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NickOnwezen wrote:
Basic Rules apply to all models,

Right. And models are defined as having a profile, and being grouped into units of one or more.

Buildings do not have a profile, and are not given a unit type. They just use elements of the rules for transport vehicles.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
if a tank is a model, then so is a building.

Why?

buildings have profiles, that's how you know what armor values they have.

No, they don't. They just have an armour value.

It has a unit type of: transport vehicle. pg 70 type: transport.

Again, no, it doesn't.

The ruels say that embarking and disembarking works the same for buildings as for transport vehicles. They do []not[/i] define the building as a vehicle type.

Other than that they are functionally identical to transport vehicles.

Yes, other than being different, they are exactly the same...

Why ask why? How do you figure a tank is a model? pg 3 clearly says "each model will have a unit type such as infantry or cavalry" Is a tank infantry or cavalry? nope, ergo it's not a model either.
What is the armor value? it's a characteristic that makes up the profile. We have all the characteristics for the profile:
Name: VWB, BS:2 armor: 14 HP: N/A type: not listed on the vehicle profile shown on pg 70. but under types: transport. but isn't it interesting that the profile on pg 70 does not list type?

They define the building on pg 92, "buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. so they use all the rules for transport vehicles, except for the difference listed.
A transport is a model, yes?
a transport is a unit, yes?
Are those listed as a difference between buildings and transports? nope. I'm glad you agree though, they are exactly the same, except for the 2 points listed.

If we want to declare that buildings are not units, nor models. Then you can not shoot at them. If it's not a unit, then it's definitely not a enemy unit.
pg 12, choose one enemy unit that it can see.

You can not assault them. pg 20. A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see.
I'm sure we'll agree that can't statements overrides can statements right? Or maybe because we're given permission to on pg 93, we can conclude that the building is a enemy unit.

Or we can agree that as buildings follow all the rules for transport vehicles, they also have the unit type that goes with it. Or at the very least we can declare them models, and follow what NickOnwezen pointed out:
The controlling player is always the player who 'owns'the model in question - the one who has included it in his army. The opposing player is always his opponent.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Why ask why? How do you figure a tank is a model? pg 3 clearly says "each model will have a unit type such as infantry or cavalry" Is a tank infantry or cavalry? nope, ergo it's not a model either.
What is the armor value? it's a characteristic that makes up the profile. We have all the characteristics for the profile:

So Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Artillery, and Beasts are not models either, as they are not Infantry or Cavalry. Interesting idea.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Why ask why? How do you figure a tank is a model? pg 3 clearly says "each model will have a unit type such as infantry or cavalry" Is a tank infantry or cavalry? nope, ergo it's not a model either.
What is the armor value? it's a characteristic that makes up the profile. We have all the characteristics for the profile:

So Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Artillery, and Beasts are not models either, as they are not Infantry or Cavalry. Interesting idea.

Fun with RAW eh?

We could debate Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Artillery, and Beasts.

I note you also did not mention tanks or vehicles. So I take it you agree vehicles are not models.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Why ask why? How do you figure a tank is a model? pg 3 clearly says "each model will have a unit type such as infantry or cavalry" Is a tank infantry or cavalry? nope, ergo it's not a model either.
What is the armor value? it's a characteristic that makes up the profile. We have all the characteristics for the profile:

So Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Artillery, and Beasts are not models either, as they are not Infantry or Cavalry. Interesting idea.

Fun with RAW eh?

We could debate Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Artillery, and Beasts.

I note you also did not mention tanks or vehicles. So I take it you agree vehicles are not models.

Considering that page 3 says that units consist of several models but a single model such as a tank, seems to say that tanks are models, I disagree with your assessment.

m not sure as i dont have the rules here. Does it not infact say Unit Composition: 1 Firestorm Redoubt (Medium Building) and something similair for the vengeance weapon battery on the included rule card. If it has a unit composition isn't it a unit?

It says "Composition: 1 Firestorm Redoubt"; it does NOT say "Unit Composition."

Edit: this is the same thing that the BRB terrains (ADL, Bastion, Fortress) say.

Well it's definetly a model based on when you look at the data sheets under all mentions of access & fire points we see "As per model"

so all buildings are models.

Now from pg 3 we see units: A single powerful model is also considered a unit in its own right.

so yes buildings are models and therefore can be a unit. RAW.

Intressting. I guess that would be a point against it beeing a unit then. i still believe that as you are the controlling player of the model, it should be fireing at your enemies as written. and I've already made my statements as how i believe the rules support that. But I'll keep lurking in this thread in case something intresting comes up.

Edit: And the post right above me concisely rehashes the point i was trying to make. I guess that counts as intresting XD!

sirlynchmob wrote:
Why ask why? How do you figure a tank is a model? pg 3 clearly says "each model will have a unit type such as infantry or cavalry" Is a tank infantry or cavalry? nope, ergo it's not a model either.

For starters, an example is not an exhaustive list. Infantry and Cavalry are two unit types. They are not the only unit types.

Secondly, that same page (over ont he right hand side down towards the bottom) explains that vehicles have their own rules and a different profile later in the book. They're not defined as units on page 3... that's handeled in the vehicle rules instead.

If we want to declare that buildings are not units, nor models. Then you can not shoot at them. If it's not a unit, then it's definitely not a enemy unit.

That's correct.. In normal circumstances, you can't shoot at buildings, nor can you attack them in close combat.

The rules do, however, define a specific situation in which you can do so (namely when the building is occupied by an enemy unit) and tell you how to do so. That doesn't make the building an enemy unit. It makes it a terrain piece that you are given specific permission to treat as an enemy unit for that specific purpose.

Or we can agree that as buildings follow all the rules for transport vehicles, ...

We cant agree on that, because it is blatantly false.

...they also have the unit type that goes with it.

A unit type is not a rule that applies to the unit. It is a signifier that tells you which rules do apply to the unit.

Terrain doesn't have a unit type. It has a terrain type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well it's definetly a model based on when you look at the data sheets under all mentions of access & fire points we see "As per model" .

That same argument has been made and debunked for quad guns. Yes, it is represented on the table with a physical model. That doesn't make it a 'model' ruleswise, since it doesn't have a unit type or a profile, which are the two things that the rules tell us define a 'model' within the rules..

 insaniak wrote:


Secondly, that same page (over ont he right hand side down towards the bottom) explains that vehicles have their own rules and a different profile later in the book. They're not defined as units on page 3... that's handeled in the vehicle rules instead.

The rules do, however, define a specific situation in which you can do so (namely when the building is occupied by an enemy unit) and tell you how to do so. That doesn't make the building an enemy unit. It makes it a terrain piece that you are given specific permission to treat as an enemy unit for that specific purpose.

It is a model rule's wise though, It's even flat out called a model. It is more clearly called a model than any vehicles are. Vehicles don't have unit types, they have different types of vehicles. the Vehicles section doesn't even call them models, except in a fluff piece on squadrons.

For starters, an example is not an exhaustive list. Infantry and Cavalry are two unit types. They are not the only unit types.

And as you agree it's not an exhaustive list. So as vehicles are accepted as models and units, it's less of a stretch to apply the same thing to buildings that are treated rules wise exactly like transport vehicles and specifically and deliberately called a model.

pg 7 basic vs advanced basic rules apply to all models in the game.. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models.
Specific types of models like a specific firestorm redoubt that is a model.
Or we can also say from this, if the building is not a model, no rules apply to it.