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.

So as the title leads one to believe this is a question about Fortifications and whether or not a Building can be effected by a weapon with the Melta, Lance, ArmourBane Special Rules.

1: Melta. (Pg 39, BRB.) "Ranged weapons with this special rule roll as additional D6 when rolling to penetrate a Vehicles Armor at Half range or less."

2: Lance. (Pb 38, BRB.) "Weapons with the Lance special rule count Vehicle Armour values higher then 12 as 12."

3: Armourbane. (Pg 32, BRB.) "If a Model has this special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 for Armour penetration in close combat. Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 for Armour penetration. In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models."

I have looked in the FAQ regarding this issue however, there seems to be nothing in the FAQ regarding whether or not you get the AV reduced for Lance, or the Double dice for Melta.

Based on what I have seen Fortifications are not Vehicles but BattleField Terrain. This is based on the fact that Vehicles have their own section in the BRB (Pg 70.) While Fortifications/BattleField Terrain have their own section. (Pg 88-107, 114-117.)

So if you have a AV 14 Building/Fortification does the Lance or Melta, get its effect or is it ignored.

Is Armour Value different when it is a vehicle or a building? no.

AV is AV, this is the question of whether or not Melta/lance can effect a building, as a building is not in a Vehicle.

All the above posted rules state in that they effect the Armour of a Vehicle. They do not state that they work when penning Armour Value alone, but have the qualifier stating that they effect Vehicle Amour.

I guess this is another GW typo... Or is it Rules as Written and intended?

 BLADERIKER wrote:
AV is AV, this is the question of whether or not Melta/lance can effect a building, as a building is not in a Vehicle.

Buildings follow all the rules for vehicles with a few exceptions.

 Happyjew wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
AV is AV, this is the question of whether or not Melta/lance can effect a building, as a building is not in a Vehicle.

Buildings follow all the rules for vehicles with a few exceptions.

I need to see some citation on this as I has yet to find this.

Each fortification has a terrain type assigned to it, which can range from 'battlefield debris' right through to 'buildings.' This terrain type informs you which rules to use in relation to that fortification, as per the rules for fortification on page 114. So you would reference the type of terrain the fortification is for any rules related to that type of terrain. Now from the context of your post I can see you are most interested in the building terrain type, as it is the only type generate Armour penetration rolls for.

Building rules can be found on page 92 and contain something very interesting you need to take a look at. Within these rules we are informed buildings follow aspects of the transport vehicle rules and indeed, many things about buildings only function because you take these rules into account. They then go on to inform you how to go about calculating capacities, armour values, access points and other details that only come into play for transport vehicles. This has set the ground that buildings are treated as identical as transport vehicles.

The next page contains a section called 'attacking buildings' which further cements this concept. The first bold section states that units fire at occupied buildings as if they where vehicles, so they would therefore follow all the rules related to firing on vehicles. It goes on to state you calculate things like armour penetration 'normally,' which would also include any factors that adjust how armour penetration is calculated. The section of the book informing us how to go about calculating these numbers are found in the vehicle section, because these terms and methods are directly related to firing on vehicles.

Therefore, such special rules would effect a building if they contain clauses which effect vehicles.

BRB, page 92, left column, second paragraph.

Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

How does

Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle.

Not answer your questions? If you're shooting it just as if it was a vehicle but not applying Melta or Lance... You're not shooting as if its a vehicle.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

Right, because I'm sure they'll answer that and add it right into their FAQ's.

Getting a response back from them in an email is laughable at best as well.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

Right, because I'm sure they'll answer that and add it right into their FAQ's.

Getting a response back from them in an email is laughable at best as well.

I'm still waiting on an answer to appear in an FAQ myself. Been a few months now. It originally occurred due to a guy at my club claiming that because all the rules say 'vehicle' they don't work on buildings. Fortunately this situation came up at the last Throne of Skulls event I was at. The ruling given to me at an official GW event, run by GW staff at GW HQ. (Sorry, just hammering home the GW-ness of the event) is that if it affects a vehicle, it affects a building. Armourbane, melta, lance, even haywire. The lot.

Given page 93 says that as well, it's not a surprise.

40k rulebook p93 wrote:When shooting at a building, roll to hit and for armour penetration normally

By that, I'd say that any special rules for armour penetration on a vehicle would work on a building.

 marv335 wrote:

40k rulebook p93 wrote:When shooting at a building, roll to hit and for armour penetration normally

By that, I'd say that any special rules for armour penetration on a vehicle would work on a building.

As would I, which was my original argument against my gaming companion. However he, as with many others I know, pointed out that melta, lance, etc. all say 'A vehicle' hit by these weapons...

His argument was that building =/= vehicle, thus they don't apply. Yes, penetrate as normal, but against a building, not a vehicle. He seemed less than amused after my return from ToS...

But then the building rules are still fairly grey and poorly written. What happens if you roll a 6 on the damage chart with an AP1 weapon? The 7 result on the table is just that, a 7. Not a 7+. RAW, god knows what happens. RAI, it's a 7...

BunnyCommando wrote:

But then the building rules are still fairly grey and poorly written. What happens if you roll a 6 on the damage chart with an AP1 weapon? The 7 result on the table is just that, a 7. Not a 7+. RAW, god knows what happens. RAI, it's a 7...

A six on a vehicle with an ap1 weapon is also just a 6. Buildings just have the 7 if they are shot with ap1 or ap2 weapons. I dont understand the confusion

Heh, so it does. Must have missed that part. Oh well, disregard that third paragraph of my previous comment.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

For Armourbane do you ignore the last sentence and roll 2D6 against the Building, Fortification? Because at the time of the assault the Building was counted as a Vehicle? Or do you check to see if the model being effect by Armourbane is a Vehicle and then roll Armour Pen?

Part of the reason I ask this is because an Infernus Pistol can destroy a building and a Melta Bomb cannot? (Given ones interpretation of the Armourbane Rule) This seems kind of backwards to me, where a pistol can destroy a Fortified Position and the Bomb (Designed to take out heavy Armour) cannot. This is also given that fact that most buildings you can attack are AV 14, are not effected by glances.

I felt that this issue needed better clarification from GW, as when 6th ed was released there were only two Fortifications that might have this issue and to even be able to target them at all, they had to have a unit inside them. With the Christmas release of the Wall of Martyrs bunker GW added another Building which you could not target unless occupied. Now with the Vengeance Redoubt/Batteries being usable in normal 40K play, there are two building that can be attacked without being occupied. So while this issue almost never came up before it will now, as there is almost a full page in the FAQ regarding battlements and things that effect them, as the guide line for how critical this could be.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

Well the terrain(Building) is not a model so that restriction does not apply.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

Well the terrain(Building) is not a model so that restriction does not apply.

Can you give an example of a non-vehicle model that has an armor value? What are they trying to restrict here?

The only way you can read that is they were trying to exclude buildings. But they did a horrible job of it.

They did do a horrible job trying to exclude buildings as buildings are not Models as defined by the 40k rules.

They are model as in the real world physical representation of a building, but they are not Models as the 40k Ruleset defines them.

So maybe they meant model, as in real world physical representation of a building, instead of Model, thing which is defined in the 40k Rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

Well the terrain(Building) is not a model so that restriction does not apply.

Can you give an example of a non-vehicle model that has an armor value? What are they trying to restrict here?

The only way you can read that is they were trying to exclude buildings. But they did a horrible job of it.

Part of the reason why I brought this up. The only other thing in all of 40K with AV other than Vehicles are Buildings/Fortifications. So why make the distinction by saying non-Vehicle model if you will never roll Armour Pen against a Model with a Toughness Value. This only leaves Buildings/Fortifications. Also if a Building/Fortification is not considered a "Model" by the BRB then what is it considered? If it is nothing more than Terrain piece then why not say so? If it is in fact a Fortified Building being used in a Strategic manner then why not say that?

Oh well Just another example of GW not thinking it out. Pitty

so are you going to tell your opponent that he can't destroy any buildings because the rules say so? pity...

That is one thing the rules are clear on, buildings can never be completely destroyed. Page 92, second paragraph on the left, second bold section. Their lack of hull points prevent them from being removed as 'casualties' in and of itself, even without a rule out right stating that they can never be removed from play. Even the total collapse and detonation results on the building damage table do not tell you to remove the building from play, simply that the guns are rendered useless and that models can no longer occupy said building.

The closest to 'destroyed' you can come is turning the building into an impassable building.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
so are you going to tell your opponent that he can't destroy any buildings because the rules say so? pity...

I am not sure what you are getting at by making the above statement?

As for Deathreapers statement Regarding Buildings not being models, I believe I have found the answer. I have looked at the Vehicle section (Pg 70-87), Battlefield Terrain section (PG 90-107), Model & Unit section (Pg 2-3), and the Force Organization Section (PG 108-110).

It has already been show that you fire at and charge a Building just like a Vehicle. Under the Vehicle Section Armour Value is explained and it is also stated that most Vehicles do not have bases and therefor you measure shooting and charges to the base, while when shooting the Vehicle you measure from the TLOS of the Weapon and the Barrel of the Weapon. There is also a Vehicle Damage Chart and the explanation of High AP weapons.

Under Battlefield Terrain, (Buildings) It is stated that you shoot at and charge a building in the same manner as you would a Vehicle, and that Buildings have a base size which will determine the AV of the building and the number of troops that can occupy it at any given time. In this section they explain how Glancing, and Penetrating hits work against a building, as well as a Building Damage Chart (Which is similar too, but not the same as the Vehicle Damage Chart). They also go on to explain that you can never destroy a build, and that should you score a six or better on the Building Damage Chart the building simply becomes Impassable Terrain, loses all of its emplaced weapons and can no longer be Garrisoned.

Under Models and Units at the very beginning of this section it states. "The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 referred to as models in the rules that follow - To reflect all their differences, each model has its own Characteristics profile." With this stated I would argue that if the Physical real world model has a Stat line that represents it in the rules then it is a model by the above mentioned quote. Where as Ruins and some Battlefield Terrain have no stat line at all (Like the Aegis Defense Line for one.) Others like Buildings and Weapons Emplacements do, and therefor are models. (Mind you this may be a narrow interpretation of the rules.)

Under Force Organization, the heading for Fortifications states that a Fortification is purpose built by the army that controls it at game start or has been commandeered by that army for its purposes. It also states that you will not find Fortifications in the individual Codexs, but in the BRB and future White Dwarf's and their Website.

I would argue that a Fortification which has a Stat line is a Model, as for it being a Non-Vehicle Model Gw needs to better define what a Non-Vehicle Model is.

As for the statement made By SoloFalcon, until such a time as GW better defines what a Non-Vehicle Model is, I will continue to abide by the Rules as Written for that. As for being able to Damage a Fortification, I do not recall once saying that you could not damage them. I simply stated that I did not see why Melta/lance/Armourbane effected them. A Fortification can still be destroyed by High STR and AP Hits. So if a Monstrous Creature Slam attacks a Bastion, then by all means that Bastion may be destroyed, that is if there is anyone Garrisoning it and not on the battlements.

And then we read page 3 "each model will have a unit type" and realize that a piece of terrain does not have a unit type and therefore is not a model as defined by the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And then we read page 3 "each model will have a unit type" and realize that a piece of terrain does not have a unit type and therefore is not a model as defined by the BRB.

However, Also stated on Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

Yet again we have an issue. How can a Fortification even be part of an army if it does not have a unit type?

These are all Fortifications and can be added to any Force Org under the Fortification Unit Slot (For the lack of a better term.) If you can only have Units (Made up of Models) in your army for your list to be legal, then either the Purchasable Fortifications have a unit type of their Terrain Type so that a list that includes can be legal, or they are an exception to the rules.

Fortifications (Pg 109, BRB, Lower Right.) "Unlike Units, Fortifications are not found in Codexes. instead you'll find a selection presented in this book (See Page 114), Whilst others will be presented in White Dwarf and through our website: www.games-workshop.com".

Aegis Defence Line, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line.)

Skyshield Landing Pad, Terrain Type: (Unique)

Imperial Bastion, Terrain Type: Medium Building (Armour Value 14)

Fortress of Redemption, Terrain type: Medium and Small Buildings (Armour Value 14.)

What I have seen above leads me to believe that when purchased as a Fortification, the Unit Type and Terrain Type hold the same meaning, but this only if they are part of an legal Force Org. If for some reason a Building such as a Bastion is part of the table Terrain then I would hope that the players would discuss what it is and how it functions as it was not purchased by any player as part of a Force Org.

Also in regards to buildings as they can never be Destroyed they can never count as a Kill/Victory Point. However, Based on the fact that a Gun Emplacement, has a Terrain type of "Battle Field Debris (Gun Emplacement)." and it has been stated in the FAQ that it can be destroyed, I would argue that you can get First Blood or a Kill point from it, based on this new information, providing that it was purchased as part of a players Force Org and not part of the Table Terrain.

A secondary question to reinforce my first question. What is the unit type stated under the Unit Types Heading (Pg 44-49 BRB), for anything that has an Armour Value?

 BLADERIKER wrote:
However, Also stated on Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

Yet again we have an issue. How can a Fortification even be part of an army if it does not have a unit type?

Because the Force Org chart tells us we can include terrain in the form of a fortification as a part of our forces.

These are all Fortifications and can be added to any Force Org under the Fortification Unit Slot (For the lack of a better term.) If you can only have Units (Made up of Models) in your army for your list to be legal, then either the Purchasable Fortifications have a unit type of their Terrain Type so that a list that includes can be legal, or they are an exception to the rules.

It is not a unit slot. It is a slot on the force Org chart. Nothing tells us that it is a unit slot.

Fortifications (Pg 109, BRB, Lower Right.) "Unlike Units, Fortifications are not found in Codexes. instead you'll find a selection presented in this book (See Page 114), Whilst others will be presented in White Dwarf and through our website: www.games-workshop.com".

Aegis Defence Line, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line.)

Skyshield Landing Pad, Terrain Type: (Unique)

Imperial Bastion, Terrain Type: Medium Building (Armour Value 14)

Fortress of Redemption, Terrain type: Medium and Small Buildings (Armour Value 14.)

What I have seen above leads me to believe that when purchased as a Fortification, the Unit Type and Terrain Type hold the same meaning, but this only if they are part of an legal Force Org. If for some reason a Building such as a Bastion is part of the table Terrain then I would hope that the players would discuss what it is and how it functions as it was not purchased by any player as part of a Force Org.

If terrain was a unit they would have said 'Unlike other units' but they actually said "Unlike units..." This should convince you that terrain is not a unit as "Unlike units..."

All of the units in the codexes have Unit type, Fortifications do not have a unit type, they have a terrain type as they are terrain and not a unit.

Also in regards to buildings as they can never be Destroyed they can never count as a Kill/Victory Point. However, Based on the fact that a Gun Emplacement, has a Terrain type of "Battle Field Debris (Gun Emplacement)." and it has been stated in the FAQ that it can be destroyed, I would argue that you can get First Blood or a Kill point from it, based on this new information, providing that it was purchased as part of a players Force Org and not part of the Table Terrain.

You only get VP's for enemy units. Terrain is never a unit.

A secondary question to reinforce my first question. What is the unit type stated under the Unit Types Heading (Pg 44-49 BRB), for anything that has an Armour Value?

Vehicles have their own section: "we will now cover a series of unit types, each with their own abilities and special rules. Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)." Page 44

Vehicle units are not covered as they are "distinct enough to require their own section"

Also Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (emphasis mine)

Vehicles are units. It spells it out right there that they are in fact "considered to be a unit in its own right." (3)

Isn't it odd though when we go to pg 70, vehicles are never once called a unit? It's not spelled out, it's inferred. It is CONSIDERED to be a unit, because it's not an actual unit so it's considered to be one. sure a tank is called a considered unit on pg 3, but vehicles are not listed. The stuff on pg 44 has unit types. vehicles have types of vehicles.

They spend 6 pages taking about vehicles in general and the word unit never comes up. A vehicle squadron can be inferred to be a unit, But that's probably just GW being inconsistant with their own terms again. What about non squadron, non tank vehicles? I know quite a few guard players who'd be happy to have their transports accepted as "not a unit" as all they seem good for is giving up first blood.

I think pg 7 basic vs advanced needs to be considered as well. All rules apply to models.

So that "terrain" is actually an enemy. As you would say it's spelled out on pg 121 (deploy forces) I'd say it's inferred.

pg7 + pg 121 = buildings are enemy models.

A building that's an enemy model and is treated like a transport during at least 1/2 the game. (the whole game really)

While it might not be a unit in the strictest (never defined in the brb) sense, it counts as one during the game, otherwise the shooting & assault rules make no sense what so ever.

We have unit types for pg 44, and that's it. But people are willing to apply vehicle types to equate unit types, is it really any stretch after that to go terrain types is also unit types?

Actually the Vehicle rules do call vehicles units under the Ballistic Skill entry: "Vehicles have a Ballistic Skill value just like other unit types" (70)

Page 71 Vehicle Movement section also calls them units "Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models."

As well as the Difficult and dangerous terrain section on P. 71 "Vehicles attempting to move through broken terrain are not slowed like other units,"

Shooting with vehicles section P.71 "When a vehicle fires, it uses its own Ballistic Skill characteristic and shoots like any other unit."

Vehicles and Ordnance weapons P.71 "Unlike other units..."

Just like other unit types = vehicles are units and they have a BS "just like other unit types"

Considered to be a unit = they are a unit.

Page 44 specifically mentions that vehicles have their own section, as the reasoning for them not being listed in the unit types section.

This tells us that vehicles should be listed here, but since they have so many rules they made their own section for that unit type...

Even the codexes list a unit type for vehicles. Take the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM It has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

Ergo Vehicles are certainly units.

A vehicle squadron is most certainly a unit.

"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons. Squadrons are treated lil<e normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." (77) (Emphasis mine)

Squadrons can become two different units if one member of the unit is immobilized P. 77: "If a member of a squadron is Immobilised, the rest of the squadron are permitted to 'abandon' it. To do so, the rest of the squadron must move out of unit coherency with it; treat the Immobilised model(s) as a separate unit from then on."

sirlynchmob wrote:
We have unit types for pg 44, and that's it. But people are willing to apply vehicle types to equate unit types, is it really any stretch after that to go terrain types is also unit types?

It is a stretch because vehicles are units and have a unit type, buildings do not and are not. You shoot and assault buildings almost the same as units, though they have additional restrictions like needing to be occupied to shoot at them...