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.

With the warlord strategic trait 3- master of ambush, could I make one my 3 units the building to infiltrate with? Since the scout rule has been debated the fact the building has no unit type, it is considered a non-vehicle unit correct?

That's one sneaky building.

Technically, a building is not a vehicle, but they are treated as vehicles - specifically, immobilized vehicles for all rules purposes.

I usually try to stick with fair and reasonable when the rules are ambiguous, so I know my answer, but I'll ask you - do you think it fair and reasonable to claim that a building could infiltrate under any circumstances?

Or, to put it another way, you mentioned there's some discussion about buildings and scout. Well, scout also confers the outflank rule. Do you think it's fair and reasonable to claim a building could outflank?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654713.page

This was a previous discussion about buildings being able to scout. Overall it cannot because building do not have a unit type so it wouldn't fit in any of the categories of what type of unit it is. The warlord trait says non-vehicle units may gain this Trait. Since the building is not classified vehicle it would fall into the non-vehicle category. Assuming this is correct


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just want to know if the wording makes this acceptable or correct

I'm all for the the new tau fortifications infiltrating

rnlmeat0666 wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654713.page

This was a previous discussion about buildings being able to scout. Overall it cannot because building do not have a unit type so it wouldn't fit in any of the categories of what type of unit it is. The warlord trait says non-vehicle units may gain this Trait. Since the building is not classified vehicle it would fall into the non-vehicle category. Assuming this is correct


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just want to know if the wording makes this acceptable or correct

A building is not a non-vehicle unit.

As it does not have a unit type, it is not a unit.

Brb says that all models in your army are units. There is ambiguity in this so no side can 100% claim to be right.

@kap'n krump in the fluff there are examples of buildings being drop podded in, such as bastions. It isn't totally unbelievable or unrealistic (if that isn't a ridiculous suggestion, given the topic).

All that said, it isn't something I would do myself.

Come on now, does this even have to be asked? It is rule manipulation like this that ruins the game for people.

No, it's the gakky rules.

This is up there with Terminators not having Terminator armour

 JamesY wrote:
Brb says that all models in your army are units. There is ambiguity in this so no side can 100% claim to be right.

That is not correct JamesY. there is a side that is 100% right and there is not ambiguity if you look at the relevant rules.

So if a building is a unit, what is it's unit type?

Remember all models have a unit type...

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (Models and units chapter, Other Important Information section).

So the building is not a model, and as such can not be a unit, because only models are organized into units.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’." (Models and units chapter, Forming a unit section).

And "In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (Models and units chapter, Forming a unit section, Units subsection, 2nd &3rd sentences).

So to sum up, only models can be arranged in units and a fortification is not a model and as such can not infiltrate.

Not quite.

• At the start of the game, all buildings that were taken as part of a player’s army are ‘claimed’ by the owning player, whilst all other buildings are ‘unclaimed’.
• A claimed building is a unit in the controlling player’s army and will remain so, even if it later becomes unoccupied, until the building is either destroyed or claimed by an enemy.
• If a unit enters a building, they immediately capture and claim that building, and it becomes part of that unit’s side until the building is either destroyed, or an enemy unit re-enters it (and therefore re-claims it).

And that is where the confusion comes in to play.

Then there's:

Fortifications
Some pieces of scenery are called fortifications. These can be included in a player’s army or used as pieces of ‘neutral’ scenery controlled by neither side. If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models. If you decide to use a fortification as a piece of neutral scenery, then it is set up during this step. Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game.

However, Vehicles do count a lot as Vehicles so that could stop them, if you stretch it far enough.

• At the start of the game, all buildings that were taken as part of a player’s army are ‘claimed’ by the owning player, whilst all other buildings are ‘unclaimed’.

When does the 'game' actually start though?

 sing your life wrote:
This is up there with Terminators not having Terminator armour

PLEASE give a synopsis on this, because that's hilarious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
This is up there with Terminators not having Terminator armour

PLEASE give a synopsis on this, because that's hilarious.

IIRC, some of the older SM codexes did not list Terminator armour in the wawgear section of the list entry for Tactical/Assault Terminator (because it was screamingly obvious they would have it), leading to some TFGs trying to say that they didn't have the armour or any of it's included special rules such as 5++ and relentless.

How I would rule this: No you can't

Why: Buildings aren't units. There is a part in the rule book mentioning unit types. Buildings are not in there.

But I would not mind it if you where planning to do this. Just announce it a few weeks before the game, so that I can scratch build some gorkonauts. That upgrade seems like a fair trade ; )


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Site note and this might be more interesting:
Are they models for the rules. There are some strange 40k effects that affect models rather then units. I don't believe that by rai they should affect building in 7th but would they by raw ?

If buildings aren't units then buildings can't be directly shot at, RAW.

And yes there is a section in the BRB covering what you do when attacking buildings but that section just says to treat it as a vehicle. Not that it gains the "Vehicle" unit type.

[edit]

Read the rules.

A claimed building is a unit for that force.
They are "to be treated as vehicles unless stated otherwise"
They can't move.
your buildings are claimed at the start of the game...

Some wonky RAW here

 oldzoggy wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If buildings aren't units then buildings can't be directly shot at, RAW.

Can you really shoot at unoccupied buildings ?

You can't shoot at any buildings rules as written.

But if we're ignoring that then yes, you can.

Charistoph wrote:
Not quite.

• At the start of the game, all buildings that were taken as part of a player’s army are ‘claimed’ by the owning player, whilst all other buildings are ‘unclaimed’.
• A claimed building is a unit in the controlling player’s army and will remain so, even if it later becomes unoccupied, until the building is either destroyed or claimed by an enemy.
• If a unit enters a building, they immediately capture and claim that building, and it becomes part of that unit’s side until the building is either destroyed, or an enemy unit re-enters it (and therefore re-claims it).

And that is where the confusion comes in to play.

Then there's:

Fortifications
Some pieces of scenery are called fortifications. These can be included in a player’s army or used as pieces of ‘neutral’ scenery controlled by neither side. If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models. If you decide to use a fortification as a piece of neutral scenery, then it is set up during this step. Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game.

However, Vehicles do count a lot as Vehicles so that could stop them, if you stretch it far enough.

A fortification still does not have a unit type, so you can never infiltrate with a fortification.

oldzoggy wrote:[edit]

Read the rules.

A claimed building is a unit for that force.
They are "to be treated as vehicles unless stated otherwise"
They can't move.
your buildings are claimed at the start of the game...

Some wonky RAW here

Not really, Ghaz pointed out the problem.

DeathReaper wrote:A fortification still does not have a unit type, so you can never infiltrate with a fortification.

Incorrect. Building is the Unit Type. Advanced Rule concepts cover this.

Ghaz pointed out the critical point, though. They are not considered units till the game starts. Game Starts with the first Turn after Deployment, Seizing the Initiative, and certain Warlord/Deceiver completes their optional redeployments after Scout.

Charistoph wrote:
Building is the Unit Type.

Citation needed, as I'm not finding "Unit type: Building" anywhere in the rules.

[HIWPI]

Outflank requires moving so that's not happening.

Scout is a redeployment so possible but the building still changes locations which is definitely going to cause objections (as it makes no sense at all...)

Infiltrate just deploys the building later and closer to the enemy presumably because they didn't notice it. I'm cool with that as long as the building is draped in camo nets, etc.

I think this is perfectly valid. Scout/infiltrate would even make sense fluffwise, bad intel etc.

Look at Tau and their Shieldwall Rampart fortification units, they are movable by themselves so why not be able to scout/infiltrate them?

X078 wrote:
I think this is perfectly valid. Scout/infiltrate would even make sense fluffwise, bad intel etc.

Look at Tau and their Shieldwall Rampart fortification units, they are movable by themselves so why not be able to scout/infiltrate them?

It already got explained in the thread why it wouldn't work

Charistoph wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:A fortification still does not have a unit type, so you can never infiltrate with a fortification.

Incorrect. Building is the Unit Type. Advanced Rule concepts cover this.

Ghaz pointed out the critical point, though. They are not considered units till the game starts. Game Starts with the first Turn after Deployment, Seizing the Initiative, and certain Warlord/Deceiver completes their optional redeployments after Scout.

Except building is not a unit type at all.

X078 wrote:
I think this is perfectly valid. Scout/infiltrate would even make sense fluffwise, bad intel etc.

Look at Tau and their Shieldwall Rampart fortification units, they are movable by themselves so why not be able to scout/infiltrate them?

I can't think of a single reason how it would make sense fluffwise...

Somehow, the entire army missed a Macro-Cannon Aquila Strongpoint because it had some leaves on it? lol...

Though treated as immobile vehicles for the sake of rules, they are not units - at all. They are buildings; pure and simple.This is support by the fact that they are not listed in the 'Unit Types' section of the rule book (which has been mentioned several times now). As for the Infiltrate special rule, it explicitly refers to units, not buildings. Units with the Infiltrate special rule can infiltrate inside of buildings (as long as they're not within 12" of the enemy), but that doesn't mean that the building itself can infiltrate.

Furthermore, buildings are always placed before deployment begins. I can't remember the exact rule that pertains to this, but at the very least staff members from two different GW stores as well as dozens of people I've played with and seen play swear by this rule. Regardless of whether this is actually a rule or a house rule adopted by most people doesn't matter ultimately because the first reason I gave was more than enough to stand against building infiltrating.

My ruling on the OP's question:

I would say a definite and unequivocal NO to a building infiltrating. Not only does it fly in the face of the rules, but it also flies in the face of logic. I would never allow it to be done in a game and I certainly wouldn't try to do it myself. Your units can infiltrate. Buildings can't.

Happyjew wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Building is the Unit Type.

Citation needed, as I'm not finding "Unit type: Building" anywhere in the rules.

DeathReaper wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:A fortification still does not have a unit type, so you can never infiltrate with a fortification.

Incorrect. Building is the Unit Type. Advanced Rule concepts cover this.

Ghaz pointed out the critical point, though. They are not considered units till the game starts. Game Starts with the first Turn after Deployment, Seizing the Initiative, and certain Warlord/Deceiver completes their optional redeployments after Scout.

Except building is not a unit type at all.

It is not listed in the Unit Type section, true, but that does not mean my statement is not accurate. I have already quoted the section on this. It is the more advanced rule.

IllumiNini wrote:Though treated as immobile vehicles for the sake of rules, they are not units - at all. They are buildings; pure and simple.This is support by the fact that they are not listed in the 'Unit Types' section of the rule book (which has been mentioned several times now). As for the Infiltrate special rule, it explicitly refers to units, not buildings. Units with the Infiltrate special rule can infiltrate inside of buildings (as long as they're not within 12" of the enemy), but that doesn't mean that the building itself can infiltrate.

Already addressed from the rules quoted above that this is incorrect.

A more accurate statement would be that when Infiltrators are deployed, a purchased Fortification is not a unit, so cannot receive the bonus as a result. When the game starts, then the purchased Fortification becomes a unit.

Furthermore, buildings are always placed before deployment begins. I can't remember the exact rule that pertains to this, but at the very least staff members from two different GW stores as well as dozens of people I've played with and seen play swear by this rule. Regardless of whether this is actually a rule or a house rule adopted by most people doesn't matter ultimately because the first reason I gave was more than enough to stand against building infiltrating.

Again, incorrect, as has already been referenced. Purchased Fortifications are placed during Deployment, not Terrain setup. So timing of placemwnt is fine except it cannot get Infiltrate till after the game starts.

Take heart OP. Your buildings may not be able to infiltrate but now they can't be shot at either.

In the deployment rules I am sure it refers to purchased buildings as units once they are deployed. If infiltrators is a mode of deployment then the buildings won't count for this as they aren't yet deployed... someone got a rulebook to hand and able to check this out?

If infiltrating (etc) buildings is possible, I would FTN as that building being erected/deployed in a more aggressive/strategic position than normal, rather the building itself actually moving forwards.