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.

The rules for buildings say that only one unit can occupy a building. The rules for multi-part buildings state that each building counts as a separate model (allowing different units to occupy the different building sections). The rules for battlements state that they count as an access point for the building they cover, and are also treated as a separate terrain piece. The Fortress of Redemption is comprised of several buildings that all have battlements.So here are the questions:

1) If a unit is embarked inside one of the buildings, can another unit (such as a jump pack squad, friendly or enemy) land on the battlements of the building containing the embarked unit, since the battlements are treated as a separate terrain piece?

2) If a unit is on the battlements of a building, can an enemy unit outside the building assault the unit on the battlements?

3) Can a unit on the battlements of a building be assaulted by an enemy unit also on the battlements of an adjacent connected building?

4) Can a unit embarked inside a building be assaulted by an enemy unit in an adjacent connected building?

These questions are based strictly on the rules in the BRB. I know that Stronghold Assault has some optional rules that cover most, if not all, of these questions, but what are the answers based just on the BRB alone?

1. yes, since battlements are seperate from the building
2. if they roll a high enough assault range and have some way to get up there (i.e. jump pack, jet pack, some way to ignore impassable).
3. see above.
4. you cannot assault a unit inside a building. You would have to assault the building itself and hope to destroy it.

Eihnlazer wrote:
4. you cannot assault a unit inside a building. You would have to assault the building itself and hope to destroy it.

Or do enough damage to the unit via the 'No Escape' rule.

yeah but if the attacking unit is inside an adjacent building it'd be pretty difficult for them to hit a fire point with a template weapon.

Eihnlazer wrote:
1. yes, since battlements are seperate from the building
2. if they roll a high enough assault range and have some way to get up there (i.e. jump pack, jet pack, some way to ignore impassable).
3. see above.
4. you cannot assault a unit inside a building. You would have to assault the building itself and hope to destroy it.

So in regards to answer #2, if they dont have wings, jump packs, etc., the enemy unit cannot assault a unit on battlements? Is this because the walls of the building count as impassable terrain, so therefore infantry units and such could not scale the walls?

Also, a new question. What about monstrous creatures and walkers? Would they be able to assault units on battlements by simply moving into base contact with the building, or would they also have to have an ability/wargear like wings/jumppacks?

Eihnlazer wrote:
2. if they roll a high enough assault range and have some way to get up there (i.e. jump pack, jet pack, some way to ignore impassable).
3. see above.

Pretty sure this is incorrect.

To get onto the battlements you simply need to have enough movement to reach it and enough room for the unit to be placed on the battlements, just as you would to reach a 2nd floor of ruins.

nope, you have to have some way to ignore impassable terrain to get up to the battlements of building that has been embarked upon.

Buildings are impassable terrain.

The rules are if it is assaulted treat the troops as if in base contact. Page 19 stronghold assault. Now to get on top of the battlements they have diffrent rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I use the fort and deal with this a lot thry basicly cannot jump up on it unless they are a jump troop. But those using can be assaulted but the assaulting unit cannot just get up there again unless a jump unit.

Eihnlazer wrote:
nope, you have to have some way to ignore impassable terrain to get up to the battlements of building that has been embarked upon.

Buildings are impassable terrain.

You have a rule that states that I assume ..

Do you have a rule stating you can walk through a building?

Not a ruin, a building.

Note this matters, because buildings can be embarked and are counted as vehicles for most rules purposes. I dont think i've ever had anyone try to make a difficult terrain test to go over or through a land raider.

Fireraven wrote:
The rules are if it is assaulted treat the troops as if in base contact. Page 19 stronghold assault. Now to get on top of the battlements they have diffrent rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I use the fort and deal with this a lot thry basicly cannot jump up on it unless they are a jump troop. But those using can be assaulted but the assaulting unit cannot just get up there again unless a jump unit.

pg 19 is battlefield debris
I think you meant pg 16 about battlements and according to the FAQ: We ignore pg 15, 16, 17 & 48 and use the BRB instead.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Do you have a rule stating you can walk through a building?

Not a ruin, a building.

Note this matters, because buildings can be embarked and are counted as vehicles for most rules purposes. I dont think i've ever had anyone try to make a difficult terrain test to go over or through a land raider.

That depends on where you fall on the 'are buildings models' debate

We are told in the movement phase you can not move or pivot through another model (friend or foe) at any time.

That would include land raiders.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Do you have a rule stating you can walk through a building?

Not a ruin, a building.

Note this matters, because buildings can be embarked and are counted as vehicles for most rules purposes. I dont think i've ever had anyone try to make a difficult terrain test to go over or through a land raider.

That depends on where you fall on the 'are buildings models' debate

We are told in the movement phase you can not move or pivot through another model (friend or foe) at any time.

That would include land raiders.

What debate, Buildings are not models because:

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section." (Models and units Chapter, Other Important Information section).

Buildings do not have a Unit Type, and as such they are not models.

Only people that have not read the rules say that buildings are models, but they have no backing and there is no debate to be had.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Do you have a rule stating you can walk through a building?

Not a ruin, a building.

Note this matters, because buildings can be embarked and are counted as vehicles for most rules purposes. I dont think i've ever had anyone try to make a difficult terrain test to go over or through a land raider.

That depends on where you fall on the 'are buildings models' debate

We are told in the movement phase you can not move or pivot through another model (friend or foe) at any time.

That would include land raiders.

What debate, Buildings are not models because:

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section." (Models and units Chapter, Other Important Information section).

Buildings do not have a Unit Type, and as such they are not models.

Only people that have not read the rules say that buildings are models, but they have no backing and there is no debate to be had.

And you can pivot through them and move through them as if they weren't there right?

Eihnlazer,
Buildings are not impassable by default, there are actually Rules designed for how Units interact with buildings that are 'impassable.'
Those Rules make it impossible for buildings to functioning as buildings if they are applied by default.

Sirlynchmob,
It is almost as if Buildings had specific instructions telling us to treat them as Vehicles for a reason....

JinxDragon wrote:
Eihnlazer,
Buildings are not impassable by default, there are actually Rules designed for how Units interact with buildings that are 'impassable.'
Those Rules make it impossible for buildings to functioning as buildings if they are applied by default.

Sirlynchmob,
It is almost as if Buildings had specific instructions telling us to treat them as Vehicles for a reason....

Care to quote it? I see no mention of treating them like vehicles in the movement phase. I see no mention at all of how to treat buildings as anything during the movement phase.

so either it's a model and you can't move through them, or it's not and you can.

From 'Buildings' in the Warhammer 40,000 7th edition rulebook:

Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that thye can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them.

The rules tell us the differences between buildings and transports. If it doesn't say anything, treat it as a transport vehicle.

Ghaz,
Sirlynchmobs constant refusal to accept that sentence is evidence is part of the problem, there is nothing more we can say to convince him so I am simply not going to bother.

JinxDragon wrote:
Ghaz,
Sirlynchmobs constant refusal to accept that sentence is the cause of his problem, there is nothing more we can say to convince him so I am simply not going to bother.

It just doesn't say what you think it does.

by stating that and agreeing with it, you are saying "it's not a model, but we treat it as a model during the entire game" So why even bring up it's not a model, if you're treating it just like and in every way equivalent to a model?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What debate, Buildings are not models because:

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section." (Models and units Chapter, Other Important Information section).

Buildings do not have a Unit Type, and as such they are not models.

Only people that have not read the rules say that buildings are models, but they have no backing and there is no debate to be had.

And you can pivot through them and move through them as if they weren't there right?

It depends on what type of terrain your opponent and you decide for buildings. If difficult, yes, if impassible, no.

Sirlynchmob,
The only reason I recognize them as non-models is because the Rules recognize the difference between objects with a Profile/Unit Type and objects without these features.
Rules which name one group as Models and simply leave the other group unnamed, so non-model objects seems appropriate a title for them.

Rule as Written is a very strict mistress, one which requires specific things to occur to Models. That makes it vital that we correctly identify what is and is not a Model, as we will be required to apply certain Rules depending entirely on that fact alone. The Authors clearly understand this, as they have allowed certain things to 'opt-in' to the system by presenting those objects with additional Rules concerning how they will function with the Basic and Advanced Rules. This is the core reason why we have a few pages dedicated to how Buildings function, even though it would be far easier to simply call Buildings a 'Unit Type' if you ask me, because they needed specific instructions telling us to treat them as Vehicles in order to function with even the most basic of Rule interactions.

Your interpretation of 'Terrain are Models by default' means applying all the Basic and Advanced Rules to them, even ones which clearly can not function if applied to something without a Profile or Unit Type....

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob,
The only reason I recognize them as non-models is because the Rules recognize the difference between objects with a Profile/Unit Type and objects without these features.
Rules which name one group as Models and simply leave the other group unnamed, so non-model objects seems appropriate a title for them.

Rule as Written is a very strict mistress, one which requires specific things to occur to Models. That makes it vital that we correctly identify what is and is not a Model, as we will be required to apply certain Rules depending entirely on that fact alone. The Authors clearly understand this, as they have allowed certain things to 'opt-in' to the system by presenting those objects with additional Rules concerning how they will function with the Basic and Advanced Rules. This is the core reason why we have a few pages dedicated to how Buildings function, even though it would be far easier to simply call Buildings a 'Unit Type' if you ask me, because they needed specific instructions telling us to treat them as Vehicles in order to function with even the most basic of Rule interactions.

Your interpretation of 'Terrain are Models by default' means applying all the Basic and Advanced Rules to them, even ones which clearly can not function if applied to something without a Profile or Unit Type....

I get what you're saying, Buildings are not models, but because of "Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that thye can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them."

buildings are models

cool, glad we got that settled.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I get what you're saying, Buildings are not models, but because of "Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that thye can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them."

buildings are models

cool, glad we got that settled.

No, buildings are not models, they are never models.

Not even if they have a unit embarked upon them, as they will not have a unit type.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I get what you're saying, Buildings are not models, but because of "Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that thye can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them."

buildings are models

cool, glad we got that settled.

No, buildings are not models, they are never models.

Not even if they have a unit embarked upon them, as they will not have a unit type.

And we're back to RAW you can move through them as if they are not there. Unless you have a rule to say otherwise and not HYWPI.

Sure,
If it wasn't for the fact we treat them as Vehicles unless otherwise specified not to.

JinxDragon wrote:
Sure,
If it wasn't for the fact we treat them as Vehicles unless otherwise specified not to.

You and DR are saying two different things.

you say when we treat buildings as vehicles, and thus we treat them as models. if they count as a model the entire game, it is the same as saying they are a model for the entire game.

DR says they are never models, He has never stated we treat them as models.

You did notice he jumped to a HIWPI statement instead of agreeing that when they're vehicles, they're models right?

You fail to recognize that I have also repetitively stated that Buildings are 'non-model objects' by default.
Buildings simply have access to a Rule which create a "psudo-Model" status for them, granting them access to all aspects of Vehicles unless otherwise stated, and this in turn is why we treat them as if they where a Model.

Last time we had this debate you also failed to explain how other "non-Model objects," ones which are also found within the Terrain section of the book and meet your lower-bar definition of 'Model,' interact with even the most basic of Rules....

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I get what you're saying, Buildings are not models, but because of "Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that thye can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them."

buildings are models

cool, glad we got that settled.

No, buildings are not models, they are never models.

Not even if they have a unit embarked upon them, as they will not have a unit type.

And we're back to RAW you can move through them as if they are not there. Unless you have a rule to say otherwise and not HYWPI.

That depends on a few factors, such as:

 DeathReaper wrote:
what type of terrain your opponent and you decide for buildings. If difficult, yes, if impassible, no.

 DeathReaper wrote:

That depends on a few factors, such as:

 DeathReaper wrote:
what type of terrain your opponent and you decide for buildings. If difficult, yes, if impassible, no.

Where is this choice in the rules? It's a interesting house rule that's for sure, why not list dangerous, ruins and open as well? If a building is impassible on it's datasheet can you choose for it to be difficult? and would that allow you to enter said building? Care to elaborate on this house rule of yours?

but given the choice, I'd pick impassible for all my buildings, as it would greatly benefit me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
You fail to recognize that I have also repetitively stated that Buildings are 'non-model objects' by default.
Buildings simply have access to a Rule which create a "psudo-Model" status for them, granting them access to all aspects of Vehicles unless otherwise stated, and this in turn is why we treat them as if they where a Model.

Last time we had this debate you also failed to explain how other "non-Model objects," ones which are also found within the Terrain section of the book and meet your lower-bar definition of 'Model,' interact with even the most basic of Rules....

I did explain all that, I explained it quite well actually.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That depends on a few factors, such as:

 DeathReaper wrote:
what type of terrain your opponent and you decide for buildings. If difficult, yes, if impassible, no.

Where is this choice in the rules? It's a interesting house rule that's for sure, why not list dangerous, ruins and open as well? If a building is impassible on it's datasheet can you choose for it to be difficult? and would that allow you to enter said building? Care to elaborate on this house rule of yours?

but given the choice, I'd pick impassible for all my buildings, as it would greatly benefit me.

Actually you can not make that choice as per the RAW.

However:

Buildings are only Impassible if:

"Some buildings are noted as being impassable buildings on their terrain datasheet. Models may not enter an impassable building, but they may use its battlements if it has any." (Battlefield Terrain chapter, Impassable Buildings section).

It also gives rules for entering buildings

"Models can enter or exit a building through a doorway or other opening that is listed on the building’s terrain datasheet as being an Access Point." (Battlefield Terrain chapter, Entering & Exiting Buildings section).

So you can not move through the walls of a building unless you use an access point to embark inside the building.

So to answer your question from before:

sirlynchmob wrote:
And you can pivot through them and move through them as if they weren't there right?

No, you can not pivot through buildings or move through them as if they weren't there, as the rules do not allow you to move through that type of terrain unless you embark within it (If it has an access point).

Sirlynchmob,
Then refresh my memory please, what prevents the Basic Rules from applying to... say... a Defence Line Segment?