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.

Understandable, I did as how to resolve the hits generated. Allow me to elaborate that I was meaning for answers to this question to have rule based support. I was seriously trying to figure out how the group which proposes 'Unoccupied buildings are hit' plan to resolve the damage these hits would create. Given that members from this group have posted as if they are stating solid rule-backed that unoccupied buildings can be hit, and therefore the damage resolved, I am very curious as to what rules they are using to get to this conclusion. I am still waiting for them to provide me with that information, and probably will for a long while because I have devoured these rules over many different occurrences and know very well no such permission exists.

Sorry if you got caught up in all of that, your answer was How I Would Play It and therefore not flawed but I was hoping for a Rule as Written answer.

This is a non-issue.

If a blast scatters onto an unoccupied buiding, the building is hit. Then, you roll for armor penetration. Then, you roll on the building damage table. Then, you apply the result. If you get hung up on the fact there there is no unit unside of the building to suffer wounds, then take a deep breath and remember that 40k does not run on not C++.

How do we know that it is ok to hit a building? Page 3, Blasts & Large Blasts, paragraph 5. Now, you probably peed a little when you saw that the quoted section says 'unit.' You might even have bitten you tongue in your wild urge to scream out that buildings are not defined as units in the book. To solve your issue with resolving complex and difficult rule interactions with reason, I will point out another one:

The quoted paragraph says that units are only hit if their base is under the blast marker. Vehicles don't have bases, so they must not be able to be hit by blast markers - by RAW. You can dig for an exception and you will find yourself at page 73 Blast Weapons. But, you will notice that paragraph only makes an exception to the base requirement in the case of multiple blasts, not for situations where only one blast template is fired by a weapon. RAW.

Now, you may be able to find some lonely rule nugget hidden away somewhere that makes my example work as it shold, as it was designed, and as everyone who plays actually plays it. But, the point is that we all know that the rules are imperfect. My example, like this thread, is a ridiculous waste of time and energy. I find the technicalities that are being cited to be just as unconvincing as those that justify my example. If a blast markers scatters onto a building, then it hits the building. Unless you also think that single blast templates can't hit vehicles...

Also, keep in mind that ambiguity and gaps are the norm rather than the exception in GW rules, so HIWPI and RAW are not always as separate as people who like to throw those terms around assume them to be.

Edit:
When I say 'you,' I am not actually referring to any one person and my language is all in jest (something has to keep such a silly topic interesting)

House rules and other How I Would Play It is more then understandable on the table. The rules for terrain and building even states that elements and features of terrain need to be negotiated on during deployment of said terrain pieces, so the players are even required to talk these things over. I would even encourage negotiation every time when it comes to buildings, so they do work far better then what is written or more dynamically to the battle you wish to narrate. This is because they have a few issues that need to be ironed out, like other terrain rules, and probably why the players are encouraged by the rules to do so.

However, this forum is not the table top and the guide line is to discuss Rules as they are Written.

One of the funs of such discussions is learning the finer details of how rules do interact in this game. Those who partake in such things, whom would state this forum exists to do so, do not consider it a waste of time and energy to discuss these things. Sometimes learning the broken and wonky results that can occur is some of the fun and those whom post here likely have their own favorite incidences of when these things occur. There is a long list of broken rules that I have encountered, duel used terminology that makes interpretation near impossible and physic distorting conclusion to sometimes even mundane rule clashes that I will probably never forget.

So, should we continue to discuss the rules as written, or leave it with the best argument being 'House Rules for buildings make sense?'

Rapture wrote:
How do we know that it is ok to hit a building? Page 3, Blasts & Large Blasts, paragraph 5. Now, you probably peed a little when you saw that the quoted section says 'unit.'....

And that's where this interpretation comes to a screaming halt, because buildings are not units.

We are only given a mechanism for resolving damage against buildings when they are occupied.

The quoted paragraph says that units are only hit if their base is under the blast marker. Vehicles don't have bases, so they must not be able to be hit by blast markers - by RAW. You can dig for an exception and you will find yourself at page 73 Blast Weapons. But, you will notice that paragraph only makes an exception to the base requirement in the case of multiple blasts, not for situations where only one blast template is fired by a weapon. RAW.

Um, the Blast rules on page 73 quite clearly state that the vehicle is hit if the blast winds up over the vehicle or its base.

But I'm not seeing the connection here anyway. Even if blasts and vehicles turned out to be broken, that wouldn't have any effect on whether or not you can attack an unoccupied building..

But, the point is that we all know that the rules are imperfect.

That's one of the very reasons that we discuss them here, so people know about these imperfections and aren't as likely to be caught by surprise by them on the table top.



For what it's worth, HIWPI in this situation is by the RAW. Given the separation between parts of a multipart building for damage resolution, I would borrow from the ruins rules and only have the blast affect the 'level' that it is targeted at. Not RAW, but in keeping with how I perceive the spirit of the rules in this situation.

Although given my current self-imposed ban on playing with fortifications until GW gets around to finishing their rules, not likely to actually be an issue in games I play...

My 'interpretation' cannot come to a screaching halt because it is not an interpretation. People are being overly RAW-ish regarding blast markers so I simply did the exact same thing. The only other thing I posted was a rational solution that fills the obvious gap in the rules with the only answer that lines up with the rules that surround the gap - no interpretation required.

insaniak wrote:
Um, the Blast rules on page 73 quite clearly state that the vehicle is hit if the blast winds up over the vehicle or its base.

But I'm not seeing the connection here anyway. Even if blasts and vehicles turned out to be broken, that wouldn't have any effect on whether or not you can attack an unoccupied building..

Do they say that, or did you just make that up? Maybe I am just reading past it. If so, let me know.

The point of the example is that RAW for blasts is broken in a way that does not make sense. This results in reasonable people filling in the gap. The reason this doesn't ever cause an issue is because there is no ambiguity - everyone agrees that blasts hit what they land on top of. We could build a 10 page thread discussing the nuances of the gap, but we don't because the appropriate way to plaw is so painfully obvious.

Here, we have a very similar situation, but people are arguing that blasts should not hit what they land on top of. This is where the example comes back into relevance as no reasonable person can argue that blasts should hit what they land on top of but then argue that they should not hit what they land on top of.

I appreciate the idea of an academic discussion, but this is right up there with 'models don't have eyes so they can't shoot' or, like my ridiculous example, arguing that single fire blast weapons can't hit vehicles without a base.

Rapture wrote:
Do they say that, or did you just make that up? Maybe I am just reading past it. If so, let me know.

No, fair enough, that was from the multiple blasts bit. It's still irrelevant, though, since one rule being broken and requiring a house rule still doesn't affect how another separate rule works.

The point of the example is that RAW for blasts is broken in a way that does not make sense. This results in reasonable people filling in the gap. The reason this doesn't ever cause an issue is because the is no ambiguity - everyone agrees that blasts hit what they land on top of.

Here, we have a very similar situation, but people are arguing that blasts should not hit what they land on top of. This is where the example comes back into relevance as no reasonable person can argue that blasts should hit what they land on top of but then argue that they should not hit what they land on top of.

Except that they're not really comparable situations.

In the case of vehicles, we have an established procedure that sensibly covers blasts - where other models use their base, vehicles use their hull. So it's not a big leap to assume to you use the outline of the vehicle instead of a base for blasts, especially when they even spell that out for multiple blasts.

In the case of the building, we have an established procedure that only ever allows you to attack an occupied building. So it's much more of a stretch to assume that empty buildings should suffer collateral damage from blasts...

This isn't an obvious oversight like the models without eyes issue... It's painfully obvious that models without eyes are still supposed to be able to shoot. It's nowhere near as obvious if you should be able to accidentally damage empty buildings when you can't target them deliberately.

 insaniak wrote:
So it's much more of a stretch to assume that empty buildings should suffer collateral damage from blasts...

It isn't that much of a stretch because you have a very similar situation with friendly units. You can't attack them, but if a blast template happens to end up on top of them they take the hits just like an enemy unit.

Again, the point of my example is that people read assumptions into the blast rules. The assumption is that thing that a blast marker lands on gets hit. Things that get hit by blasts might, depending on dice, suffer damage.

Assuming that vacant buildings get hit by blasts when the rules don't explicitly is no different than assuming that vehicles get hit by blasts when the rules don't explicitly state it.

Anyone prepared to argue this should be prepared for the gamiest rules lawyer arguments in return - because that is exactly what this argument is.

Where, exactly, does it say that an unoccupied building cannot be damaged/hit?

I see that we only have permission to attack occupied buildings, but in this case the building is not being attacked, only effected by an attack on another unit.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Where, exactly, does it say that an unoccupied building cannot be damaged/hit?

It doesn't. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the rules don't say that they can be damaged.

I see that we only have permission to attack occupied buildings, but in this case the building is not being attacked, only effected by an attack on another unit.

OK. So how do you resolve the damage?

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Where, exactly, does it say that an unoccupied building cannot be damaged/hit?

It doesn't. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the rules don't say that they can be damaged.

I see that we only have permission to attack occupied buildings, but in this case the building is not being attacked, only effected by an attack on another unit.

OK. So how do you resolve the damage?

The same as you would if the building was occupied. There is no difference.

@Jinx.

By your interpretation there, the rule on page 94 that the building takes a hit from the template weapon is ignored ? The building is treated as a vehicle, how do you resolve a template hit vs a vehicle?

Fragile wrote:
The same as you would if the building was occupied. There is no difference.

But those are rules for attacking occupied buildings. Where are you seeing permission to use those rules to resolve damage to an unoccupied building?

The same place you have permission to resolve any hit vs a Transport vehicle.

Nothing in the rules says they cannot be hurt by a scattered blast because they are unoccupied. They are treated like a vehicle, with the noted exceptions. Immunity to weapons is not one of them.

Fragile wrote:
The same place you have permission to resolve any hit vs a Transport vehicle.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Can you please provide an actual rules reference that says to resolve damage against unoccupied buildings as if they are transport vehicles?

Nothing in the rules says they cannot be hurt by a scattered blast because they are unoccupied.

Nothing in the rules says they can not be destroyed by one of the players performing a rain dance, either.

That's not how the rules work.

They are treated like a vehicle, with the noted exceptions. Immunity to weapons is not one of them.

They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

You have a hit, this is determined via the Blast/Template weapons rules and they tell us anything under the Marker/Template is hit, a hit gets resolved per the rules for attacking buildings.

You are only given permission to attack an occupied building, but you are not told an unoccupied building cannot get hit.

By resolving the hit you are breaking no rules.

By not resolving the hit you are breaking 2(the Blast/Template rules stating that the building is hit, and then the attacking buildings rule thaa tells you what to do when a building is hit).

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The same place you have permission to resolve any hit vs a Transport vehicle.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Can you please provide an actual rules reference that says to resolve damage against unoccupied buildings as if they are transport vehicles?

Nothing in the rules says they cannot be hurt by a scattered blast because they are unoccupied.

Nothing in the rules says they can not be destroyed by one of the players performing a rain dance, either.

That's not how the rules work.

They are treated like a vehicle, with the noted exceptions. Immunity to weapons is not one of them.

They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

Im sorry, can you post that page please? I dont see a "only when they are occupied" on any of the rules except for shooting and charging.

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

Im sorry, can you post that page please? I dont see a "only when they are occupied" on any of the rules except for shooting and charging.

It is in the building rules by virtue of telling you when you are shooting at them or assaulting them they are treated like a vehicle.

Got a page and Graph that says they are treated like a vehicle the rest of the time?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
They are treated like a vehicle when they are occupied .

The rest of the time, they're just terrain.

Im sorry, can you post that page please? I dont see a "only when they are occupied" on any of the rules except for shooting and charging.

It is in the building rules by virtue of telling you when you are shooting at them or assaulting them they are treated like a vehicle.

Got a page and Graph that says they are treated like a vehicle the rest of the time?

The one that says "Building of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference being Buildings can not move, and units from both sides may go inside them"

The rules do say that you cannot Attack a Unoccupied building though, but the rule book also says that any blast templates cant be fired on friendly units. Yet a blast template will still wound Friendly units if it scatters over them. And this should be used for anything on the battle field that does have the ability to be wounded/destroyed. like buildings. I dont actualy think it would bring around a massive difference either way to be fair. having buildings crumble to dust from a scatterd template adds a bit more dynamic play to the game though.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
The rules do say that you cannot Attack a Unoccupied building though,

And here is the flaw in your argument...

"The rules don't say I can't!"

If you use this as an argument, your argument is false.

The rules don't say I can't place my vehicles back on the board after they have exploded, but that doesn't mean we are allowed to do it.

The rules are a permissive ruleset: It means we are only allowed to do things that the rules expressly allow us to do. We are not allowed to do anything else.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
The one that says "Building of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference being Buildings can not move, and units from both sides may go inside them"

Right... so buildings use aspects of the transport vehicle rules, as detailed in the Building section.

The only place they tell us to resolve damage against the building as if it were a vehicle is in a section that only specifies permission to attack an occupied building.

Nowhere are we told that we can apply damage to buildings in any other situation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
By not resolving the hit you are breaking 2(the Blast/Template rules stating that the building is hit,...

So when the blast winds up over a ruin, you're breaking rules by not resolving damage against the ruin?

 insaniak wrote:
Nowhere are we told that we can apply damage to buildings in any other situation.

You're assuming that the one sentence granting permission to attack an occupied building means that the entire section following that sentence applies only to situations involving occupied buildings. Instead, it just says "when shooting at a building". If you find yourself shooting at a building, no matter how it happened, you follow the specified rules for shooting at it. If a building suffers a glancing or penetrating hit you apply the damage result, no matter how that glancing or penetrating hit was obtained (for example, a psychic power that causes a penetrating hit without rolling against the building's AV). All you need to do to make it work is recognize an implied "if any" following all references to "the unit inside"

The only question here is whether a blast template landing on top of a building counts as "attacking" it. And here we have a situation very similar to blast weapons scattering onto units you aren't allowed to attack (and note that the blast weapon rules specify that "the unit" takes the hits without ever giving any hint that they're now talking about the unit the blast template landed on, not the original target of the shot). In that situation the resolution is simple: you aren't allowed to target a friendly unit with an attack, but if you happen to hit one you resolve the hits just like you would against a legal target. Same with buildings, IMO.

 Peregrine wrote:
Instead, it just says "when shooting at a building".

Which you're only given permission to do if the building is occupied.

If you shot at something else, and the blast winds up on top of the building, you weren't shooting at the building.

 insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
By not resolving the hit you are breaking 2(the Blast/Template rules stating that the building is hit,...

So when the blast winds up over a ruin, you're breaking rules by not resolving damage against the ruin?

Apples and Oranges; you have no rules for Hits and damage on Ruins. You do have rules for them on buildings

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Apples and Oranges; you have no rules for Hits and damage on Ruins. You do have rules for them on buildings

No, you have rules for them on occupied buildings.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Apples and Oranges; you have no rules for Hits and damage on Ruins. You do have rules for them on buildings

No, you have rules for them on occupied buildings.

No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

You use the same logical conclusion for Invulnerable saves on vehicles

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

How do you resolve hits against vehicles or other models that are not targeted?

All the rules assume you are targeting the unit, Blast/Template gives you rules for hitting which allows for damage against models you have not targeted(following the normal rules for hitting)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

How do you resolve hits against vehicles or other models that are not targeted?

All the rules assume you are targeting the unit, Blast/Template gives you rules for hitting which allows for damage against models you have not targeted(following the normal rules for hitting)

Buildings are not models... They are terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you have rules that only allow for shooting at or asssaulting Occupied buildings; then in the those rules explain how hits work.

Exactly. And nowhere in that section does it allow you to use that process for unoccupied buildings.

How do you resolve hits against vehicles or other models that are not targeted?

All the rules assume you are targeting the unit, Blast/Template gives you rules for hitting which allows for damage against models you have not targeted(following the normal rules for hitting)

Buildings are not models... They are terrain.

Terrain that can be shot, assaulted and partially destroyed. As such, you can resolve any hits against them without breaking any rules.

Fragile wrote:
Terrain that can be shot, assaulted and partially destroyed...

...under one specific condition.