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.

Started an APOC game yesterday. My opponent had a bastion that kept auto shooting my units. However when I said I wanted to destroy it, even though there were units ON IT he said because they were not in the bastion itself I don't have RAW to target it.

Also he had 2 new APOC chaos cannons that were considered terrain but auto shot at my closest units all game. Is that RaW or RaW could they not attack at all?

Just RaW.

Thanks all.

I don't have the apoc book but a bastion does not fire on it's own unless there is a unit inside of it per pg 96. As far as the other is concerned I would assume it's probably a gun emplacement and can be attacked as such.

Edit: No you cannot attack an empty building either.

While your opponent was correct that you could not assault the building itself but this denial stems from the fact it was unoccupied at the time, so I would like to direct your attention to page 96 where two sets of rules are found.

The first rule can be found on the left hand side of this page and it highlights how you can go about attacking the units on a battlement. These rules grant you permission to carry out the attack from within the building itself, as long as you are able to embark into the section of the building that is underneath the battlement. Keep in mind that the battlement is not part of the main section of the building for purpose of being occupied, either through the old 'multiple part structure' rules found on page 92 or through the FAQ's that point out that the battlement doesn't count as any part of the building in the slightest. Seeing your opponent has agreed already that the building is not occupied, because that is the only way that he can deny you permission to assault it, then he has no ground to deny you permission to occupy it yourself!

The second rule I would like to bring your attention to is on the right hand side under the Emplaced weapons section, titled Automatic fire. The very first sentence contains a few words along the lines of 'if the building is occupied...' so in order for the gun to be fired automatically there needs to be people within that section of the building where the emplaced weapons can be found. Given that the building was not occupied then any emplaced weapons can not carry out automatic attacks. Now there is an exception to this rule: Some of the new fortifications have a special rule allowing them to be impassable buildings, hence unable to be occupied, but still carry out automatic attacks of their own. An interesting thing about this special rule though is it grants permission for the building to be assaulted and shot at as if it was occupied so you still have permission to attack them and cripple the guns in question so they can't fire.

It is a gun emplacement, and you don't need to occupy the building to use it.

but if he is just on the battlements, you can occupy the building then attack him on the battlements.

Q: Can a unit occupying a Bastion manually fire a gun
emplacement (eg. quad gun) on the Bastion’s roof? (p116)
A: No – a model must be in base contact to manually fire a
gun emplacement, therefore the unit must be on the
Bastion’s roof.

I think he was meaning the bolters which are weapons found within the central section of the bastion, as he mentions them being auto fired while the unit was on the battlements and not occupying the building.

I think he's talking about the new Fortifications. Both are AV14 builds with weapons that fire at the nearest enemy even if not occupied. One of which can not be occupied (Vengeance Weapon batteries).

In both cases he was right RaW you can't attack them. But RaW they are terrain and have no enemies and therefore never fire. Or they fire every turn for each player. RaW these things cause all sorts of problems and should just be played by the actual rules instead. If you can't agree what the RaI is then create a house rule to cover how they work prior to the game.

That was my assumption as well, Jinx.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It is a gun emplacement, and you don't need to occupy the building to use it.

Gun emplacements can't autofire.

For the Bastion to autofire its emplaced weapons, the unit does need to be inside.



Buildings can only be attacked (and in the case of fortifications with emplaced weapons, can only make attacks) when occupied by a unit.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think he's talking about the new Fortifications. Both are AV14 builds with weapons that fire at the nearest enemy even if not occupied. One of which can not be occupied (Vengeance Weapon batteries).

In both cases he was right RaW you can't attack them. But RaW they are terrain and have no enemies and therefore never fire. Or they fire every turn for each player. RaW these things cause all sorts of problems and should just be played by the actual rules instead. If you can't agree what the RaI is then create a house rule to cover how they work prior to the game.

pg 121 states fortifications are either friendly or enemy throughout the game though. As such, if you brought the new aquilla stuff it will shoot your opponent. The VWB are also in the rules for them impassible, but they can be shot or assaulted.

The bastion & redoubt needs to occupied for the emplaced guns to fire.

How do you shoot or attack the VWB?

Same way you would attack an occupied building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 121 states fortifications are either friendly or enemy throughout the game though. .

No, it doesn't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
How do you shoot or attack the VWB?

The rules insert for the VWB gives you permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Same way you would attack an occupied building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 121 states fortifications are either friendly or enemy throughout the game though. .

No, it doesn't.

Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortification, FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, following the normal rules.

it's clearly stating that during the game fortifications are still considered friendly or enemy to the ones that brought it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortification, FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, following the normal rules.

That says that you can move in and out of friendly or enemy fortifications. It doesn't say that your fortification is friendly or enemy.


If I tell you that you can pat my cat, regardless of whether she is feeling friendly or hostile today, does that tell you which of those she actually is?


The rule you're presenting is a suggestion of intent. It's not a statement about the status of any given fortification.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortification, FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, following the normal rules.

That says that you can move in and out of friendly or enemy fortifications. It doesn't say that your fortification is friendly or enemy.


If I tell you that you can pat my cat, regardless of whether she is feeling friendly or hostile today, does that tell you which of those she actually is?


The rule you're presenting is a suggestion of intent. It's not a statement about the status of any given fortification.

Can you cite any rules of the status ever changing?

If you deploy a fortification, your units are friendly towards it, that quote continues that status of friendly into the game. The fortification you bring will always be considered friendly to your units regardless of who is in it. RAW.

Unless you can cite any rule or anything that would suggest that status will or even can change.

sirlynchmob wrote:
If you deploy a fortification, your units are friendly towards it,...

Are they? Why?

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortification, FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, following the normal rules.

That says that you can move in and out of friendly or enemy fortifications. It doesn't say that your fortification is friendly or enemy.


If I tell you that you can pat my cat, regardless of whether she is feeling friendly or hostile today, does that tell you which of those she actually is?


The rule you're presenting is a suggestion of intent. It's not a statement about the status of any given fortification.

I'm really happy you decided to take this in another direction about petting your angry cat. I was wondering if you could come around giving me your opinion. I kid of corse.

The Bastion has bolters that auto fire. If there is no unit inside the bastion. Can I attack it? RAW? If I can not, then RAW can those bolters even attack me ?

Again:

 insaniak wrote:
Buildings can only be attacked (and in the case of fortifications with emplaced weapons, can only make attacks) when occupied by a unit.

There are no general rules that allow you to attack an unoccupied building, nor that allow an unoccupied building to fire its emplaced weapons.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If you deploy a fortification, your units are friendly towards it,...

Are they? Why?

pg 121 says so. It sets up fortification as either friendly or enemy from the moment it is placed on the table. This status never changes and there's not even a piece of fluff to to show intent of the friendly/enemy status ever changing. And this status is reinforced by the, during the game they are still friendly/enemy. If it's on your army list, it's friendly to you.

Otherwise what is the point of even stating you can move into friendly/enemy fortification if there wasn't a distinction between the two?

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 121 says so. It sets up fortification as either friendly or enemy from the moment it is placed on the table.

A relevant quote would be useful...

Otherwise what is the point of even stating you can move into friendly/enemy fortification if there wasn't a distinction between the two?

I'm not arguing that you're not supposed to treat your fortifications as friendly. Just as I don't argue that you're not supposed to be able to join Shrike to a unit and infiltrate them together.

But sometimes, GW's rules don't actually say what they probably should.

My questions were answered in full by the 2nd post, please close this down MOD.

Thanks
Dan

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 121 says so. It sets up fortification as either friendly or enemy from the moment it is placed on the table.

A relevant quote would be useful...

Otherwise what is the point of even stating you can move into friendly/enemy fortification if there wasn't a distinction between the two?

I'm not arguing that you're not supposed to treat your fortifications as friendly. Just as I don't argue that you're not supposed to be able to join Shrike to a unit and infiltrate them together.

But sometimes, GW's rules don't actually say what they probably should.

This one isn't relevant enough?

pg 121 "Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortification, FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, following the normal rules."

How about with this second one?

pg 121 "any friendly unit can deploy within one of their army's fortifications, ...."

Two clear statements showing that fortifications are considered friendly to the play that brought them, from before the game starts and during the game.

Then lets look at the force org chat pg 109. As it sits outside both primary and allied detachments, yet your units consider it friendly, we can also conclude that both primary and allied treat it as friendly even if the primary & allies treat each other as enemy units.

sirlynchmob wrote:
This one isn't relevant enough?

pg 121 "Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortification, FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, following the normal rules."

Didn't we just cover the fact that this doesn't actually define anything as friendly or enemy?

How about with this second one?

pg 121 "any friendly unit can deploy within one of their army's fortifications, ...."

That's closer. It doesn't strictly define the building as friendly to the unit... 'friendly' is simply shorthand for 'unit in your army'. It's a better indication than the first quote, but still not a clear definition of the fortification as being 'friendly' to the unit.

Then lets look at the force org chat pg 109. As it sits outside both primary and allied detachments, yet your units consider it friendly, we can also conclude that both primary and allied treat it as friendly even if the primary & allies treat each other as enemy units.

A conclusion that only works if you accept that premise that the fortification is treated as 'friendly' by your units...

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
This one isn't relevant enough?

pg 121 "Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortification, FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, following the normal rules."

Didn't we just cover the fact that this doesn't actually define anything as friendly or enemy?

How about with this second one?

pg 121 "any friendly unit can deploy within one of their army's fortifications, ...."

That's closer. It doesn't strictly define the building as friendly to the unit... 'friendly' is simply shorthand for 'unit in your army'. It's a better indication than the first quote, but still not a clear definition of the fortification as being 'friendly' to the unit.

Then lets look at the force org chat pg 109. As it sits outside both primary and allied detachments, yet your units consider it friendly, we can also conclude that both primary and allied treat it as friendly even if the primary & allies treat each other as enemy units.

A conclusion that only works if you accept that premise that the fortification is treated as 'friendly' by your units...

Can you find any clear definition of friendly or enemy? or that units in your army are actually defined as friendly towards each other? It's implied with all the use of friendly/enemy but fortifications are more clearly defined than between your same codex hq & troops.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If you deploy a fortification, your units are friendly towards it,...

Are they? Why?

pg 121 says so. It sets up fortification as either friendly or enemy from the moment it is placed on the table. This status never changes and there's not even a piece of fluff to to show intent of the friendly/enemy status ever changing. And this status is reinforced by the, during the game they are still friendly/enemy. If it's on your army list, it's friendly to you.

Otherwise what is the point of even stating you can move into friendly/enemy fortification if there wasn't a distinction between the two?

The distinction between 'friendly' and 'enemy' buildings is only relevant during deployment. Once the game begins, the difference becomes meaningless as there are no rules (that I can see) regarding how units interact with 'friendly' or 'enemy' buildings.

sirlynchmob wrote:Can you find any clear definition of friendly or enemy? or that units in your army are actually defined as friendly towards each other? It's implied with all the use of friendly/enemy but fortifications are more clearly defined than between your same codex hq & troops.

Thus highlighting one of the current issues with GW's rules.

Implying something isn't the same as defining it. Rules should do the latter, not the former.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Can you find any clear definition of friendly or enemy? or that units in your army are actually defined as friendly towards each other? It's implied with all the use of friendly/enemy but fortifications are more clearly defined than between your same codex hq & troops.

Thus highlighting one of the current issues with GW's rules.

Implying something isn't the same as defining it. Rules should do the latter, not the former.

Agreed, friendly/enemy is not defined so all we can do is imply meanings to it. For our own units, and for the fortifications we bring.