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.

Unoccupied buildings, page 94, can't be shot or smacked. Okay.

What happens if a template target & hits the clowns on the upper battlement? Say, an Orbital Bomb or Vindicator pops a STR 10 on them. Sure the the infantry on the top get to poop their drawers, but the building remains unmolested, yes?

Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

However, there is no way (with current building models) for a blast template to be over the battlements without also being over the model. The building takes the hit as normal.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

However, there is no way (with current building models) for a blast template to be over the battlements without also being over the model Building. The building takes the hit as normal.

FTFY with the red because buildings are not models as 40k Defines.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Battlements are not "part of the building" (per se), so of course the building remains untouched.

However, there is no way (with current building models) for a blast template to be over the battlements without also being over the model. The building takes the hit as normal.

Where is there permission to hit and damage the building if it is unoccupied? How/why is the building being hit when the battlements on top are what was targeted?

That section seems ambiguous to me. You are forbidden to 'shoot', 'charge' or 'attack' an unoccupied building, but there is no mention of what happens if a building is hit when attacking a unit on or near the building.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
That section seems ambiguous to me. You are forbidden to 'shoot', 'charge' or 'attack' an unoccupied building, but there is no mention of what happens if a building is hit when attacking a unit on or near the building.

In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

If the unit were beside a building and the blast were to touch the building (either through scattering entirely off the target unit or just enough to touch/overlap a portion of the building) however, I would agree there is some ambiguity on how to handle that particular situation.

And these kinds of arguments are why my group decided to say that if there are guys on a battlement, the fortification is occupied. Stupid GW rules that make no sense.

Is it similar to being unable to target your own units, but you can scatter on them accidentally?

My understanding would be an accidental hit would be resolved as normal.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
That section seems ambiguous to me. You are forbidden to 'shoot', 'charge' or 'attack' an unoccupied building, but there is no mention of what happens if a building is hit when attacking a unit on or near the building.

In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

If the unit were beside a building and the blast were to touch the building (either through scattering entirely off the target unit or just enough to touch/overlap a portion of the building) however, I would agree there is some ambiguity on how to handle that particular situation.

While I completely agree with you from a RAI and HIWPI point of view, I will play Devil's advocate regarding RAW. The rules that cover blasts being resolved on different levels only relate to Ruins, not Buildings. In the case of a blast being placed on the battlements, the Building would still be under the marker.

Having read and re-read and then consumed the building rules in depths for a few previous threads, and finally cursing the existence of the FAQ removing the building 'tag' from the battlements as it now means tanks can climb ladders*, I have come to understand just how twisted some of the rule writers over at Game Workshop are. A few of them actual do keep track of the terminology definitions put forth by earlier sections of the books and use it to write some rules that read completely different outside of those definitions. It wouldn't be so bad if they had proper editors, or didn't do 'in house' play testing of the rules, but we are talking about Game Workshop so I am not at all surprised we have situations where logic is thrown out the window but I am digressing thanks to a personal bias against badly written building rules.

So back on topic, one thing is very obvious though: You have to discount the hit against the building.

Putting aside the argument that buildings are not models, they are not, the rules for attacking and damaging the building are all written with the intention of a unit being inside said building. The largest example of this is the fact the building will never have Hull Points or Wounds. Any damage generated by the attack is instead resolved against the embarked unit, with only a handful of results containing a secondary effects that do have a possibility of changing the building type or rendering a emplaced weapon useless. Notice I didn't say 'have a chance of damaging or destroying the building' because none of the results can do that. The most devastating result against a building does not 'remove it as a casualty' or even 'turn it into a wreck' like we see with other models using a damage table, but simply changes the building type to one that can not be embarked into.

Given that the primary damage generated can never be applied to unoccupied buildings, and the secondary damage doesn't actually do anything to damage/destroy the building, it is already an uphill battle to state that a blast marker has the ability to inflict damage on an unoccupied building.

Given that we have rules written in a way that they can not be applied, we then have to take a closer look as to why they can not be applied. The idea that terrain is not 'models' explains this very well, as the marker/template weapons require you to count models hit in order to begin generating a wound pool against the unit those models exist in. If it isn't a model, and not part of a unit, then you do not have permission to include it in the calculations. This solves all the problems as now you don't have to worry how to apply damage to a building that can not, technically, be damaged. It also hold water as for why other types of terrain can not be damaged as, outside of one or two with unique rules, other terrain lacks the same characteristics required for calculating damage against them as well. If they are also not 'models,' as per the game definition of a model, then you do not run into the paradox of having to apply damage to a tree that has no rules on how it is damaged.

*On that tank thing: I am not kidding, the only thing preventing a tank from evoking the unique embarking rules found in the battlement section was a 'pure infantry only' rule. This restriction was a blanket restriction on all buildings, which the battlement would of been included under thanks to the multiple-part structure rules. That FAQ removed the building tag, it didn't even need to in order to explain the answer but did because... again bad writing from Game Workshop. Therefore you can place tanks on battlements, even during game, by evoking the ladder as an access point and pointing out that any model can do so.


Personally : - I think they should of just made buildings into 'immobile transport vehicles,' with hull points and all the other characteristics you would expect.

It wouldn't be hard to then have a special rule that all buildings unoccupied by enemy forces are treated as friendly models. This stops the whole 'what happens if a blast marker scatters' question, while keeping the rest of the core rules intact as the building still can't be targeted directly. I would be even more happy to have that special rule reversed, they are enemy models unless a friendly is embarked with a secondary unique rule to allow both sides to embark in these 'enemy transports.' That way we can deliberately attack them, hoping to either turn them into wrecks we might be able to fire over the top of, or at the very least deny the enemy the ability to occupy them before they actually do so. In any case it would give a 'destructible terrain' feel to the game, and anyone whom has played a game which lets you change the terrain for tactical advantage will tell you how 'cool' that is.

JinxDragon wrote:

Personally : - I think they should of just made buildings into 'immobile transport vehicles,' with hull points and all the other characteristics you would expect.

It wouldn't be hard to then have a special rule that all buildings unoccupied by enemy forces are treated as friendly models. This stops the whole 'what happens if a blast marker scatters' question, while keeping the rest of the core rules intact as the building still can't be targeted directly. I would be even more happy to have that special rule reversed, they are enemy models unless a friendly is embarked with a secondary unique rule to allow both sides to embark in these 'enemy transports.' That way we can deliberately attack them, hoping to either turn them into wrecks we might be able to fire over the top of, or at the very least deny the enemy the ability to occupy them before they actually do so. In any case it would give a 'destructible terrain' feel to the game, and anyone whom has played a game which lets you change the terrain for tactical advantage will tell you how 'cool' that is.

Completely agree with giving buildings hull points etc and treating them as enemy models unless a friendly is embarked in it. That would have been MUCH more "cinematic" and certainly easier to grasp.

JinxDragon wrote:
Having read and re-read and then consumed the building rules in depths for a few previous threads, and finally cursing the existence of the FAQ removing the building 'tag' from the battlements as it now means tanks can climb ladders*, I have come to understand just how twisted some of the rule writers over at Game Workshop are. A few of them actual do keep track of the terminology definitions put forth by earlier sections of the books and use it to write some rules that read completely different outside of those definitions. It wouldn't be so bad if they had proper editors, or didn't do 'in house' play testing of the rules, but we are talking about Game Workshop so I am not at all surprised we have situations where logic is thrown out the window but I am digressing thanks to a personal bias against badly written building rules.

So back on topic, one thing is very obvious though: You have to discount the hit against the building.

Putting aside the argument that buildings are not models, they are not, the rules for attacking and damaging the building are all written with the intention of a unit being inside said building. The largest example of this is the fact the building will never have Hull Points or Wounds. Any damage generated by the attack is instead resolved against the embarked unit, with only a handful of results containing a secondary effects that do have a possibility of changing the building type or rendering a emplaced weapon useless. Notice I didn't say 'have a chance of damaging or destroying the building' because none of the results can do that. The most devastating result against a building does not 'remove it as a casualty' or even 'turn it into a wreck' like we see with other models using a damage table, but simply changes the building type to one that can not be embarked into.

Given that the primary damage generated can never be applied to unoccupied buildings, and the secondary damage doesn't actually do anything to damage/destroy the building, it is already an uphill battle to state that a blast marker has the ability to inflict damage on an unoccupied building.

Given that we have rules written in a way that they can not be applied, we then have to take a closer look as to why they can not be applied. The idea that terrain is not 'models' explains this very well, as the marker/template weapons require you to count models hit in order to begin generating a wound pool against the unit those models exist in. If it isn't a model, and not part of a unit, then you do not have permission to include it in the calculations. This solves all the problems as now you don't have to worry how to apply damage to a building that can not, technically, be damaged. It also hold water as for why other types of terrain can not be damaged as, outside of one or two with unique rules, other terrain lacks the same characteristics required for calculating damage against them as well. If they are also not 'models,' as per the game definition of a model, then you do not run into the paradox of having to apply damage to a tree that has no rules on how it is damaged.

*On that tank thing: I am not kidding, the only thing preventing a tank from evoking the unique embarking rules found in the battlement section was a 'pure infantry only' rule. This restriction was a blanket restriction on all buildings, which the battlement would of been included under thanks to the multiple-part structure rules. That FAQ removed the building tag, it didn't even need to in order to explain the answer but did because... again bad writing from Game Workshop. Therefore you can place tanks on battlements, even during game, by evoking the ladder as an access point and pointing out that any model can do so.


Personally : - I think they should of just made buildings into 'immobile transport vehicles,' with hull points and all the other characteristics you would expect.

It wouldn't be hard to then have a special rule that all buildings unoccupied by enemy forces are treated as friendly models. This stops the whole 'what happens if a blast marker scatters' question, while keeping the rest of the core rules intact as the building still can't be targeted directly. I would be even more happy to have that special rule reversed, they are enemy models unless a friendly is embarked with a secondary unique rule to allow both sides to embark in these 'enemy transports.' That way we can deliberately attack them, hoping to either turn them into wrecks we might be able to fire over the top of, or at the very least deny the enemy the ability to occupy them before they actually do so. In any case it would give a 'destructible terrain' feel to the game, and anyone whom has played a game which lets you change the terrain for tactical advantage will tell you how 'cool' that is.

That was a massive wall of text, but I do not see any rules to show why you think the template rule on 94 would not apply.

Since the topic is about buildings, mind if we add some questions about assualts? It says on page 92 a building with a bastion is considered 2 small buildings put together. It says you may assault a unit in an adjacent building. But i reading the rules it doesnt seem like you can simply charge into the building from the ground floor outside.

Example,
Can Deamon prince in base to base with a bastion charge a unit inside? I would think, No.
Can a deamon prince jump up to the battlements on top of a bastion, assuming there are no units up there, and then charge the unit inside the bastion? I would say yes.

Is this the general consensus?
Thoughts.

Tsilber wrote:
Since the topic is about buildings, mind if we add some questions about assualts? It says on page 92 a building with a bastion is considered 2 small buildings put together. It says you may assault a unit in an adjacent building. But i reading the rules it doesnt seem like you can simply charge into the building from the ground floor outside.

Example,
Can Deamon prince in base to base with a bastion charge a unit inside? I would think, No.
Can a deamon prince jump up to the battlements on top of a bastion, assuming there are no units up there, and then charge the unit inside the bastion? I would say yes.

Is this the general consensus?
Thoughts.

The FAQ totally changed how the bastion works in regards to being a building.

In short
Page 52, Template weapons:
This page highlights how you calculate the number of hits against your target and any unfortunate model to be under the template. Notice the key word there is models, anything that is not classified as a model is not included in this calculation. For a building to be hit by a template, or blast marker for that matter as it has similar wording, it would need to be a model in order for you to include it in the 'To Hit' calculations.

Buildings Not being Models :-
Page 3, Other important information:
This section tells us that models, as defined by the rules, have two characteristics: A profile and a Unit Type. All terrain lack these things in full, though two do comes close. The first is gun encampments, which have a profile but luck a unit type. The second is buildings, but they have a lot less then a gun encampment as they have only an Armour value. It is debatable if they have a unit type because they use aspects of a vehicle type: transport. Those rules also highlight that not all vehicle rules apply, giving us a incomplete list of which is which and no mention on the 'type' carrying over.

Still they lack a profile:
If you find this to be in error, show me where it states a buildings hull points and ballistic skills, something needed for it to classify as a 'vehicle profile.'

Dissecting building Rules :-
One of the biggest things about the building rules is the fact they exist, so many of them exist and they are greatly different from the normal rules for things. The very first thing the 'buildings are effected by template' group has to convince this board of is why they have permission to apply the standard rule instead of the more specific rules we are given for buildings. There are even very unique rules designed for just that purpose, page 94, so it is clear we are meant to apply these rules to the situation.

Now lets look at those rules:
First, Template weapons can be used on the unit inside a building
Second, Template weapons generate hits differently in this situation
Third, those hits include one to the building using all the normal rules for buildings being hit

So we have a rule with three parts and two of those parts require the building to be occupied. Not only that, but the first one states that the weapon can only be used against the unit inside of the building. Putting aside the debate over the status of 'model' in and of itself, if the weapon can only be used against this 'model' when it is occupied then we have a restriction preventing you from including it in the calculation. However let us assume for a moment this isn't a big hole in the 'templates can hit building' argument and move forward. I will also assume somewhere out there is evidence that a player is allowed to half apply a rule when the majority of it can not apply to the situation.

Let us move on to looking how a 'normal' hit s resolved against a building, one page back:
First, you make a roll To Hit, well we can pass on that because it is auto-hit.
Second, you roll against the AV of the building.
Third, You resolve damage against the unit inside the building...

Now we have reached the biggest problem with these rules, without a unit inside of the building you can not apply the damage generated by the hit itself. This is the problem with the lack of hull points or giving us rules to treat them like vehicles, the only way to resolve the rules completely is if they are occupied. Still let us continue with the above assumption still in place, that we can half apply rules because the 'damage table' might give us some sort of sliver of a chance to the 'template hit unoccupied buildings' group.

The table on the next page has seven results and it looks like five of them have secondary effects that could affect the building itself in a negative way. Of those five only two had effects that did not, in and of themselves, also require the building to be occupied for the entirety of the rule to be applied. It is pretty clear the rules written in the damage chart section where also written with only occupied buildings in mind.

At this point we would be applying a sliver of a single rule applied by a third of a rule which itself is applied by a third of a rule governing how this particular weapon type interacts with Buildings. All because every rule we are required to use to resolve this situation involves the building being occupied. This includes several potential restrictions found throughout the building section, on top of the repetitive clear intent that buildings need to be occupied, that I personally really hate because I want destructible terrain!

I think it is pretty much proven that buildings are not designed to have the standard combat rules applied to them, including the standard rules for Template weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A quickly before bed, For Tsliber:

A Daemon Prince can not embark into the building itself, as they have restrictions preventing monstrous creatures from embarking, but can attack using the standard rules for assaulting buildings on page 93. This restriction is partly due to a FAQ removing the building status from battlements, even though it is clear that the battlement was meant to have access to the multiple structured rules. it was within the multiple structured rules that you would find permission to assault from one part of a building to another and how to resolve this action. Seeing this is a rule in the subsection of buildings, and battlements are no longer buildings, you are denied permission to use it... sorry.

Also, page 95 holds unique permissions and instructions on how jump units embark into/onto battlements. Those could be an interesting debate in a time when I am not so tired, because the rules for flying monstrous creatures are worded interesting when it comes to treating these models as jump models. It technically wouldn't have had permission to embark into the battlement even if gliding, as the gliding rules do not state we treat Flying monstrous creatures as Jump units for the purpose of embarking. This means the rules for buildings, which are unique to jump/jet-pack units, would not be applied to this situation as it is still a flying monstrous creature as far as the rules are concerned.

All moot though: Battlements are not buildings anymore so you can simply 'move' onto it like any other terrain so I guess the FAQ taketh, the FAQ giveth...

The rulebook states that battlements are occupied, and that they are part of the building. The FAQ removes the implication that they are a separately targetable part of the building.

Ergo, if there's a unit up there, then the battlements are occupied, and if the battlements are occupied, then the building cannot be said to be unoccupied, and is in fact partially occupied (even though there is no embarked unit).

Blast away, RaW, or at least RaW enough - the rules are not very well written, leaving ambiguity, but why go with the silly interpretation when a reasonable one is at hand?

And the notion that you cannot attack the building while models are occupying just the roof is really nonsense given that there three rules for damaging models on the battlement via attacking the building. I can only throw grenades onto the roof if there's someone inside, apparently helping them over the edge? Please. IMO, the rules are written to prevent you from making assaults and attacks not on the enemy - this situation simply doesn't qualify.

Pyrian wrote:
...and if the battlements are occupied, then the building cannot be said to be unoccupied, and is in fact partially occupied (even though there is no embarked unit).

There are no rules for 'partially occupied buildings'. The building is either occupied, or it isn't.

A building with battlements is a multi-part building. That means that each part is treated as a separate building (except for the battlements, which the FAQ 'clarifies' are a separate part, but not actually a building). So if one part of the multi-part building is occupied, only that part of the multipart building is occupied, because each part is a separate building.

In the case of, say, a Bastion with models only on the roof, this means that the main part of the bastion can not be attacked, as it is unoccupied, and is a separate buidling to the part that is occupied. And the battlements can't be attacked, because for some inexplicable reason that flies in the face of the rules as written in the rulebook, they're not considered to be a building.

Rorschach9 wrote:
In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

There doesn't need to be a mechanism. Everything under the template is hit. So if you have a (hover mode) flyer over a unit on top of a building you could potentially hit all three of them with a single shot. The "only on the same level as the template" rule ONLY applies to multi-level ruins. In every other situation you look from directly above and everything under it, no matter how far under it, takes a hit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
In the scenario described the blast template is not touching a building however. It is over a unit that is on battlements. There is no mechanism to transfer that blast down to the building below the unit + battlements so no, the building would not and could not be damaged in this particular scenario.

There doesn't need to be a mechanism. Everything under the template is hit. So if you have a (hover mode) flyer over a unit on top of a building you could potentially hit all three of them with a single shot. The "only on the same level as the template" rule ONLY applies to multi-level ruins. In every other situation you look from directly above and everything under it, no matter how far under it, takes a hit.

First - your scenario is not possible (you cannot have a flyer over a unit to begin with)

Second - How would you apply the hit from the blast to an unoccupied building (as the building below the battlements is, in the described scenario, unoccupied)? What is the mechanism for that? A page reference from the rules should suffice.

I don't know how much you value the GW staff's word on the rules but the general consensus is that a scattered hit onto the building, occupied or not would be resolved as a hit.

Rorschach9 wrote:
First - your scenario is not possible (you cannot have a flyer over a unit to begin with)

You might want to have a look at 'Flyers and Other Models' on page 80 of the rulebook...

Second - How would you apply the hit from the blast to an unoccupied building...

You can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

smithy12262 wrote:

I don't know how much you value the GW staff's word on the rules...

No more than anyone else's, since non-studio staff have non special insight into or training in the rules. They just go off their own understanding of the rules like the rest of us do.

 insaniak wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
First - your scenario is not possible (you cannot have a flyer over a unit to begin with)

You might want to have a look at 'Flyers and Other Models' on page 80 of the rulebook...

Fair enough (I've honestly never seen anyone end a fliers move over another model so that is something that's easily forgotten tbh), however .. doesn't change the fact that;

Second - How would you apply the hit from the blast to an unoccupied building...

You can't.

My point entirely. Peregrine seems to be arguing that by placing a blast marker on top of the unit on a battlement on top of a building, you are also (somehow) "hitting the building". Fine, you hit the building .. but it does nothing (which has been the point from the OP on really. There is nothing that happens to the unoccupied building, so hitting it or not is frankly entirely irrelevant)

smithy12262 wrote:

I don't know how much you value the GW staff's word on the rules...

No more than anyone else's, since non-studio staff have non special insight into or training in the rules. They just go off their own understanding of the rules like the rest of us do.

Yup. I've had GW Staff (storefront staff) at 3 different stores give a different ruling on the same rule in the recent past. They know as much as any of the rest of us as far as the rules go.

I hate these rules as well, the wording is a jumbled mess IMHO.

Personally the best thing you can do is embark in the building and instantly charge the models on top. There is no restriction on charging the same turn you embark, so just get as close as possible as fast as possible and murder the guys on top.

Rorschach9 wrote:
My point entirely. Peregrine seems to be arguing that by placing a blast marker on top of the unit on a battlement on top of a building, you are also (somehow) "hitting the building". Fine, you hit the building .. but it does nothing (which has been the point from the OP on really. There is nothing that happens to the unoccupied building, so hitting it or not is frankly entirely irrelevant)

Perhaps a rules citation is in order. Show where nothing happens. The rule says you cannot shoot or assault, it never mentions that no damage can be applied if it is not occupied.

*points back to his long post*

Putting side the fact I have yet to see a profile and unit type, indicating that the building is a model in it's own right and therefore can generate hits via the Template weapon rules, we sill have a massive problem that is being ignored: How do we resolve the hits generated?

The rules informing us how these hits would be resolved against buildings are all designed to apply only to occupied buildings; the very damage generated requires an embarked unit in order to be resolved. This includes the very rules designed for when and how a template weapon hit's a building, informing us to resolve damage against the unit inside and then consider a hit against the building as a secondary effect. The rules for resolving any damage generated by that hit requires us to be able to resolve them completely or partially against an embarked unit. Even in the two cases on the building damage charts that do not inflict additional damage on the embarked unit still require the primary damage to be inflicted against the embarked unit. So even if we accept that a unique terrain piece can be considered 'hit' by the general Template rules, the rules telling us what to do with that hit require the building to be occupied.

If you think this is in error, point me to the page which tells us how to resolve hits against unoccupied buildings.

Id say roll on the building dmg chart and ignore any result that says "do x hits at x str to the unit inside"

What gives you permission to ignore results rolled on said table?
While we are at it, where are you getting permission to half apply a rule in the first place?

To get permission to roll on the building damage table in the first place, requires evoking not one but two rules prior. Both of these rules require some action to be carry out against the unit inside the building before you can continue. If we where to simply ignore any rule which involves the embarked unit then we have zero rules left as to how to resolve this damage because we would also have to discard the rules giving us permission to continue.

As I mentioned before:
I hate these rules and if you are willing to house-rule them to be different I am more then willing to listen when it comes to the table top. However my bias against these rules does not give me permission to ignore them completely at a whim. More so when discussing what these rules actually tell us to do, with rules on this forum telling us not to try and pass our house rules off as actual rules. Unless someone can provide a rule giving us permission to half apply other rules, then we can not accept this as a legal solution.

Rules as written:
It is very clear that the only way to resolve a hit against a building is if it is occupied to begin with.

Fragile wrote:
Perhaps a rules citation is in order. Show where nothing happens. The rule says you cannot shoot or assault, it never mentions that no damage can be applied if it is not occupied.

That's the wrong way around.

You're only given permission to attack occupied buildings. In [i]that[i] situation, you are told to treat them like a transport vehicle.

No mechanism is provided within the rules for applying damage to an unoccupied building. So no, it doesn't say that no damage is applied... there is simply no way to apply that damage.

There are no rules anywhere saying to do what i proposed.

You asked how i would do it, and i answered. That is all.