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.

nareik wrote: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.

Already quoted above:

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.

The key point in denying the building Infiltrate actually lies in the timing listed in the very first bullet: "At the start of the game".

"Holy crap! where did that church come from?!?"

I like to imagine an outflanking bastion as being dragged around by a bunch of grots with a series of log rollers - kind of like how Egyptian builders moved around the giant stones for the pyramids, but with gigantic, whole buildings and tiny grots.

 EnTyme wrote:
"Holy crap! where did that church come from?!?"

To be fair, the fluff for some buildings is they are dropped in from orbit, so that is probably a legitimate quote for a M41 battlefield :p.

Be like the castle from Krull.

nareik wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
"Holy crap! where did that church come from?!?"

To be fair, the fluff for some buildings is they are dropped in from orbit, so that is probably a legitimate quote for a M41 battlefield :p.

I'm not a fluff expert, but do you have any specific examples of this? All I can think of is in the dawn of war games, and even in those, it was more like the materials were dropped in, and they still had to assembled into buildings.

Where in the fluff do they, say, drop pod in a bastion? That would be one hell of a drop pod.

I mean bottom line question for me is if a building is considered a unit. That is all I need to know. I can agree with not being able to scout or ouflank, but I'm not convinced with not being able to infiltrate. Fluff wise makes sense...bad scout reports or it had been camouflaged...the building didn't move

rnlmeat0666 wrote:
I mean bottom line question for me is if a building is considered a unit. That is all I need to know. I can agree with not being able to scout or ouflank, but I'm not convinced with not being able to infiltrate. Fluff wise makes sense...bad scout reports or it had been camouflaged...the building didn't move

Its already been established its not a unit until the start of the game which is after it could have infiltrated

 CrownAxe wrote:

rnlmeat0666 wrote:
I mean bottom line question for me is if a building is considered a unit. That is all I need to know. I can agree with not being able to scout or ouflank, but I'm not convinced with not being able to infiltrate. Fluff wise makes sense...bad scout reports or it had been camouflaged...the building didn't move

Its already been established its not a unit until the start of the game which is after it could have infiltrated

What page is that on? Thanks

It's worth remembering that there are other, not discussed implications of a building not being a unit in your army. Among others, it cannot give up first blood, or count towards kill points if you claim it is not a unit. I personally rule on what I believe is the RAW interpretation, it is classified as a unit in the BRB, but not assigned a specific unit type, and therefore can infiltrate. Is this faintly silly? Yes, but not actually worse than TFG who deploys his raiders parallel to his deployment zone to gain an extra 3" of movement on his first turn. Ultimately, if you think you are in a position where this might happen, you need to discuss with your opponent before deployment, and make sure you are both on the same page. Just bloody dice off if you can't agree.

 goblinzz wrote:
Yes, but not actually worse than TFG who deploys his raiders parallel to his deployment zone to gain an extra 3" of movement on his first turn.

Of course doing this is illegal, as no part of the vehicle can move more 6" without going Cruising Speed (nor can it move more than 12" in the Movement phase).

 Happyjew wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
Yes, but not actually worse than TFG who deploys his raiders parallel to his deployment zone to gain an extra 3" of movement on his first turn.

Of course doing this is illegal, as no part of the vehicle can move more 6" without going Cruising Speed (nor can it move more than 12" in the Movement phase).

There was a bloody huge row about this a while ago (to the extent that when I posted the Dakka thread to my local gaming forum somebody got banned over their behavior). While I agree with you above, I challenge you to find anybody who actually enforces that rule TO THE LETTER. I think it's quite neat, as it would mean that raiders would move like sailing galleons, everyone just merrily spins them in defiance of the rules...

 CrownAxe wrote:

rnlmeat0666 wrote:


I mean bottom line question for me is if a building is considered a unit. That is all I need to know. I can agree with not being able to scout or ouflank, but I'm not convinced with not being able to infiltrate. Fluff wise makes sense...bad scout reports or it had been camouflaged...the building didn't move

Its already been established its not a unit until the start of the game which is after it could have infiltrated

^^ This .

So, at the risk of having people scream at me, I have missed the part of the discussion surrounding where the game "starts", is there a clear cut definition in the rule book that the first phase of turn 1 is the start of the game, or is deployment, warlord selection etc. part of the actual game?

If this is clearly defined, that could change my position.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read on the internet today and that is saying a lot . This is simply one of those things most people wouldn't have the cojones to ever attempt IRL.

 goblinzz wrote:
So, at the risk of having people scream at me, I have missed the part of the discussion surrounding where the game "starts", is there a clear cut definition in the rule book that the first phase of turn 1 is the start of the game, or is deployment, warlord selection etc. part of the actual game?

If this is clearly defined, that could change my position.

No, there is no defined starting point to the game. They just picked a random spot and called it the start. IMO the game starts once the first die is cast, when you roll to determine the mission.

But deployment would clearly fall under "after the game has started" and the building would be a unit and claimed for this phase. As you place your building with the rest of your units, it's clearly claimed at this point. If the game hasn't started yet during the deployment phase, than how can any model use any of its rules?

the reason you can't use master of ambush is it only works on non vehicle units, and were told specifically 'treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.'

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, there is no defined starting point to the game. They just picked a random spot and called it the start. IMO the game starts once the first die is cast, when you roll to determine the mission.

False. Everything that occurs before the first turn starts is before the game. Everything covered in the 'Preparing for Battle' section of the rules is before the game when you are preparing for the game, i.e. battle.

I saw the title.


That said, In the spirit of the game, I wouldn't.

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, there is no defined starting point to the game. They just picked a random spot and called it the start. IMO the game starts once the first die is cast, when you roll to determine the mission.

False. Everything that occurs before the first turn starts is before the game. Everything covered in the 'Preparing for Battle' section of the rules is before the game when you are preparing for the game, i.e. battle.

Citation needed.

That is not defined in the rules, it's just your opinion.


Also, read any mission you can also make a case for the game begins when you choose an army to an agreed point limit. The whole game is described on one page under preparing for battle.

And do you have anything that says otherwise? No. So what turn does agreeing to a point limit and building your army fall in?

 Ghaz wrote:
And do you have anything that says otherwise? No. So what turn does agreeing to a point limit and building your army fall in?

have we not already agreed to play a game before we roll to see what mission we're playing?

all you need to do is show where in the rules it says "begin the game"

Then, and this is the fun part, once you know the mission you make your army. Did you make your army list before we rolled for the mission? If so you're already outside the realm of RAW.

As there is no defined spot one can easily see based on the missions that you start the game when you make your army. That is the first thing you're told to do and the game is afoot.

Look at 'Game Length' on page 133 of the main rulebook. Not everything that happens after you agree to a game is a part of the game.

found it, pg 17 "before the game begins"

these things are done before the armies deploy for battle. so by the deployment phase is the farthest you can move the "begin game" function.

sirlynchmob wrote:
found it, pg 17 "before the game begins"

these things are done before the armies deploy for battle. so by the deployment phase is the farthest you can move the "begin game" function.

And Deployment is listed as "the last thing to do" in its introduction.

I've never found the buildings not being a unit argument particularly strong. Yes they do not have a unit type, and yes the rule book says that every unit has a type. It also specifically says that they are a unit in the owner's army.

Saying they are not a unit is a huge headache. If it is not a unit then how does it shoot. The shooting phase says to nominate a unit. If its not a unit how do you shoot at it, when your told to target a unit. So many interactions with buildings require it to be a unit.

The RAW says they are a unit while simultaneously not giving it the things that a unit has to have. If you don't treat it as a unit then they are literally unplayable so I think the most common sense approach is to take the road that lets them be played and just consider them a unit.

 coblen wrote:
I've never found the buildings not being a unit argument particularly strong. Yes they do not have a unit type, and yes the rule book says that every unit has a type. It also specifically says that they are a unit in the owner's army.

Saying they are not a unit is a huge headache. If it is not a unit then how does it shoot. The shooting phase says to nominate a unit. If its not a unit how do you shoot at it, when your told to target a unit. So many interactions with buildings require it to be a unit.

The RAW says they are a unit while simultaneously not giving it the things that a unit has to have. If you don't treat it as a unit then they are literally unplayable so I think the most common sense approach is to take the road that lets them be played and just consider them a unit.

I'm pretty sure it's (generally speaking) they are not units, but are treated as units to serve particular purposes. For example, an empty but not destroyed building is treated as an immobile vehicle for the purposes of it being shot at, but they're not actually an immobile vehicle. So I have to disagree with you on this. They're not units but they're treated as particular types of units (or, generally speaking, a unit) to serve a particular purpose or allow a particular rule to apply.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 coblen wrote:
I've never found the buildings not being a unit argument particularly strong. Yes they do not have a unit type, and yes the rule book says that every unit has a type. It also specifically says that they are a unit in the owner's army.

Saying they are not a unit is a huge headache. If it is not a unit then how does it shoot. The shooting phase says to nominate a unit. If its not a unit how do you shoot at it, when your told to target a unit. So many interactions with buildings require it to be a unit.

The RAW says they are a unit while simultaneously not giving it the things that a unit has to have. If you don't treat it as a unit then they are literally unplayable so I think the most common sense approach is to take the road that lets them be played and just consider them a unit.

I'm pretty sure it's (generally speaking) they are not units, but are treated as units to serve particular purposes. For example, an empty but not destroyed building is treated as an immobile vehicle for the purposes of it being shot at, but they're not actually an immobile vehicle. So I have to disagree with you on this. They're not units but they're treated as particular types of units (or, generally speaking, a unit) to serve a particular purpose or allow a particular rule to apply.

I would believe that except that the rules very clearly say that it is a unit. In the buildings section under claiming buildings.

"A claimed building is a unit in the controlling player’s army"

That seems to me to be a very clear to me. A claimed building is a unit. So buildings can be units. I don't see any other way to interpret that. Normally this would be the end of the discussion but the rule book also states that all units have a unit type. The unit type of buildings is never defined. This has led some to think it is not a unit. As a described above this leads to the rules breaking down and buildings not working at all.

Also I think that the rule making it a building far more definitively state its a unit then the rules against it state it is not. The rules just say a claimed building is a unit with no real room for interpretation.
It never says a unit lacking a unit type is not a unit. It just says that all units have unit types. If a unit did not have a unit type I would not assume it wasn't a unit, I would assume it was missing a piece that all units have. If GW printed a unit, and under unit type it was just blank, I would not assume it wasn't a unit. I would assume there was a mistake in the writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the topic of when the game begins I find the things in the book don't seem to agree.

The ‘Before the Game Begins’ and ‘At the End of the Game’ section says that.

"During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens‘ before the game begins’. Examples of such events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle"

To me that seems like the game begins when you deploy, because everything that happens before the game happens before deployment.

But then if you look at the AERIAL SUPPORT section it says.

"Special rules that allow an owning player to move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game begins"

This to me says that the game begins after deployment because its talking about rules that happen after deployment, but before the game begins.

I don't think these two rules are reconcilable as they both seem to say different things.

 coblen wrote:
On the topic of when the game begins I find the things in the book don't seem to agree.

The ‘Before the Game Begins’ and ‘At the End of the Game’ section says that.

"During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens‘ before the game begins’. Examples of such events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle"

To me that seems like the game begins when you deploy, because everything that happens before the game happens before deployment.

But then if you look at the AERIAL SUPPORT section it says.

"Special rules that allow an owning player to move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game begins"

This to me says that the game begins after deployment because its talking about rules that happen after deployment, but before the game begins.

I don't think these two rules are reconcilable as they both seem to say different things.

I think you just solved it because those two sentences can definitely exist together...

The first sentence says that any action or event that refers to 'before the game begins' must be resolved before deployment. Ok. That does not mean that deployment is when the game begins. Only just that things with 'before the game begins' must be resolved before deployment.

Your second sentence now tells us, in no uncertain terms, when the game begins. It begins after deployment. Which solves a lot of questions about this rule. It is only considered a unit, after the game begins. The game has not begun until after deployment. So, it is not possible to infiltrate the building as by the time it is a unit, deployment has already ended.

Bravo? I think you just solved it.

 coblen wrote:

On the topic of when the game begins I find the things in the book don't seem to agree.

The ‘Before the Game Begins’ and ‘At the End of the Game’ section says that.

"During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens‘ before the game begins’. Examples of such events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle"

To me that seems like the game begins when you deploy, because everything that happens before the game happens before deployment.

But then if you look at the AERIAL SUPPORT section it says.

"Special rules that allow an owning player to move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game begins"

This to me says that the game begins after deployment because its talking about rules that happen after deployment, but before the game begins.

I don't think these two rules are reconcilable as they both seem to say different things.

Also keep in mind that ICs are allowed to join other units before the game begins by being deployed in coherency or declared joined in Reserves.

Just because most things done "before the game begins" are done before deployment doesn't mean deployment is when the game begins, either. In this case, as Deployment says, "The only thing that remains to be done is the deployment of the two armies."

 coblen wrote:
I would believe that except that the rules very clearly say that it is a unit. In the buildings section under claiming buildings.

"A claimed building is a unit in the controlling player’s army"

That seems to me to be a very clear to me. A claimed building is a unit. So buildings can be units. I don't see any other way to interpret that. Normally this would be the end of the discussion but the rule book also states that all units have a unit type. The unit type of buildings is never defined. This has led some to think it is not a unit. As a described above this leads to the rules breaking down and buildings not working at all.

Also I think that the rule making it a building far more definitively state its a unit then the rules against it state it is not. The rules just say a claimed building is a unit with no real room for interpretation.
It never says a unit lacking a unit type is not a unit. It just says that all units have unit types. If a unit did not have a unit type I would not assume it wasn't a unit, I would assume it was missing a piece that all units have. If GW printed a unit, and under unit type it was just blank, I would not assume it wasn't a unit. I would assume there was a mistake in the writing.

And I would have no problem with this explanation if I could come up with even one example of something that isn't a building that was a unit that didn't have a unit type. If you can prove to me that units without unit types exist - and not as a result of a lack of clarity in the rules - then I will embrace this hands down no questions. But as far as I know, it simply isn't the case. Buildings are the only grey area on this point. So I'll stand by my words: Buildings are not units, but are treated as such in certain circumstances to satisfy certain rules.

 coblen wrote:
On the topic of when the game begins I find the things in the book don't seem to agree.

The ‘Before the Game Begins’ and ‘At the End of the Game’ section says that.

"During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens‘ before the game begins’. Examples of such events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle"

To me that seems like the game begins when you deploy, because everything that happens before the game happens before deployment.

But then if you look at the AERIAL SUPPORT section it says.

"Special rules that allow an owning player to move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game begins"

This to me says that the game begins after deployment because its talking about rules that happen after deployment, but before the game begins.

I don't think these two rules are reconcilable as they both seem to say different things.

As @HondaDaBest and @Charistoph said, you've essentially just proved to us that the game starts after deployment, meaning that buildings cannot infiltrate because they cannot be in any way considered units until the game starts. If you were trying to argue in support of buildings being able to infiltrate, you may have just checkmated yourself