Buildings' battlements/parapets

[Dan VK]

Buildings of all types use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. The main difference between them and actual vehicles is that they can’t move, and units from either side can go inside.

BRB page 78

 

... moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle (including emergency disembarkations).

BRB page 79

 

Models entering a building are removed from the table – you can either note down where they are on a piece of paper or use another suitable reminder.

BRB page 79

 

If any models from the unit are placed on a parapet, they can fire in addition to those using firing points. They still count as being in the building though, so cannot be shot or assaulted directly. However, if a damage roll is made against the building while some occupiers are on the roof, add +1 to the result.

BRB page 80

 

The following is a bit of background on how these questions arose. I had first turn. I deployed a unit of Eldar Pathfinders embarked in a building in my deployment zone and declared them to be inside the building, not on the parapets (why make the building essentially Open-Topped in case my opponent seizes the initiative?). During my Shooting phase I attempted to fire with the Pathfinders and declared that they were now on the parapets and therefore all damage rolls against the building add +1 to the result until further notice. My opponent asked how I was firing with the Pathfinders, since I moved to get on the parapets and therefore the squad could not fire Heavy weapons. We are very gracious and forgiving of mistakes made due to misunderstandings of the rules, so my opponent and I settled the problem for that game by retroactively declaring that my Pathfinders moved to the parapets during their Scout move. This solution did not solve possible problems in further games, though.

 

I am basically asking how buildings with parapets work in relation to movement, including embarking/disembarking. The following are the possible interpretations I have come up with:

 

1 - The player may may change whether the unit's models are or are not on the parapets during that player’s Movement phase, but the unit does not count as moving if the player does so. This was my original understanding of the rules.

 

2 - The player may change whether the unit's models are or are not on the parapets during that player’s Movement phase, and the unit counts as moving if the player does so. This interpretation makes the most RAI sense to me. If models are in the building then they must move to man the parapets. If models are manning the parapets then they must move to pull back into the building. Unfortunately I do not see any mention of movement other than embarkation/disembarkation.

 

3 - Whether a unit does or does not have models on the parapets is declared when the unit embarks and cannot be changed without disembarking and embarking again. I find this interpretation easiest to support. Buildings are treated as transport vehicles (see first and second quotes), so models are either embarked or not. Models embarking a building are removed from the table and their position somehow noted (see third quote), such as placing the models on top of the building as if they are manning the parapets (see final quote). This makes the most RAW sense to me, but I find the idea of Space Marines doing a Chinese fire drill to reposition themselves in a building as ridiculous as it is funny (of course, my imagination has nothing to do with the RAW). This would mean a player wishing to fire from the parapets with a unit embarked in a building would need to disembark the unit and embark them in the building again the following turn, possibly exposing the unit to shooting and assault. :huh:

 

Help! :)

 

 

[Edit: I put the quotes in a better order.]

[Seahawk]

I would (and do) go with Option 1, myself. I can't see it any other way. If a rhino is stationary for two turns, and the guys inside shoot one direction, if they shoot in a different direction does it count as moving? That's the most comparable example I can think of, and the answer is "no of course not." Opening the hatch to fire from doesn't count as moving any more than choosing a different fire point/angle/parapet/parakeet.

[Dan VK]

I would (and do) go with Option 1, myself. I can't see it any other way. If a rhino is stationary for two turns, and the guys inside shoot one direction, if they shoot in a different direction does it count as moving? That's the most comparable example I can think of, and the answer is "no of course not." Opening the hatch to fire from doesn't count as moving any more than choosing a different fire point/angle/parapet/parakeet.

The problem with my first interpretation is that I cannot find any mention of when a player may declare whether models are or are not on the parapets; the Movement phase just seems like a good time the make such a distinction, but is unsupported.

 

 

[EDIT: I am sorry for the multiple edits; my flash to bang time is little slow today.]

[vonny]

I seem to remember that there used to be vehicles where you could shoot out of the top hatch (like the rhino), but doing so would make the vehicle open-topped for the coming game turn. If such a rule still exists in the current edition (which I don't know), then that would be an excellent precedent.

 

I think that's no longer around though...

[Dan VK]

Here is another interpretation from Archon Yggrasil (he is standing over my shoulder), reworded by me. The models are not 'on the parapets' if they are embarked in the building and fire only using the firing points. If more models fire than may do so by using the fire points, however, the unit is considered to be 'on the parapets' and all damage rolls against the building gain a +1 to their results during the next player turn. This would mean declaring whether models are "in or on" buildings happens during the Shooting phase.

 

The main problem I see with this interpretation stems from the first sentence of the final quote in my original post, which means to me if models are 'on the parapets' they may shoot without using fire points, not that if they shoot without using fire points they are 'on the parapets'.

 

Also, if "models entering a building are removed from the table" how may they be "placed on a parapet" :)

 

 

I seem to remember that there used to be vehicles where you could shoot out of the top hatch (like the rhino), but doing so would make the vehicle open-topped for the coming game turn. If such a rule still exists in the current edition (which I don't know), then that would be an excellent precedent.

 

I think that's no longer around though...

I remember this rule as well, it made power armor even more awesome. As far as I know this rule no longer exists.

 

 

[EDIT: Added additional response.]

[rat of vengence]

I would 'feel' that they would move onto the parapets, since they would need to be taken from 'off' the table and put back 'on' again. that would preclude firing move-or-fire weapons. However, I can't think of an actual firm rule to clarify this. I think you guys sorted it out the right way :yes:

 

RoV

[Isiah]

I'd agree with this and this is generally how we deal with this during our games:

 

2 - The player may change whether the unit's models are or are not on the parapets during that player’s Movement phase, and the unit counts as moving if the player does so.

 

A building has defined firepoints (decided by the actual building model or player agreement beforehand). If the the parapit has no defined firepoints (but uses 'real' models to determine shooting) then it seems to me to have different building status to the rest of the 'embarked/firepoints' element. This is fine and his hinted at in the grey box on page 80 – though not really covered in the battlements/parapit section per se.

 

I think in this instance a 'move' to the parapit from within the body of the building seems appropriate (without the ruin's level-swapping difficult terrain test). But it's up to the players how best to accomplish this I guess.

 

But if the parapit/battlement had a defined number of firepoints (say slits in the walls, or crenallations etc), then I'd expect up to two (or whatever you'd agreed) models at each one. You wouldn't physically need them there but when you shoot you declare the firepoints that are being used, and models can move from one to another without penalty as they desire. Damage results do not get the +1 boost. Of course the disadvantage is that you are stuck with your firepoint allowance.

 

Anything 'buildings' really does need sorting out pre-game to make sure everyone's straight. It seems to me that GW didn't even consider the possibility of models wanting to move onto or off a parapit once it was a building occupied and this is how this issue has arisen.

[Dan VK]

Anything 'buildings' really does need sorting out pre-game to make sure everyone's straight. It seems to me that GW didn't even consider the possibility of models wanting to move onto or off a parapit once it was a building occupied and this is how this issue has arisen.

I am beginning to agree that a pre-game discussion or roll-off is necessary to sort out this section of the rules. I hate grey areas. :huh:

[Rider-75]

we play with option number 2.

 

if you want to come form inside the building onto the parapets to shoot (or vice versa), then you are essentially moving.

[Ming]

1. The overall building rules are optional (in terms of being inside them, assaulting them, etc).

 

2. A unit can either be in, out, or on top of a closed, intact building, bunker, or tower. Not split between these modes. To go from one mode to another is essentially movement. Wrecked buildings are different and WYSIWIG for model location.

 

Locally:

 

a. If the roof has no door, unless you can jump/fly or the distance is less than 6 inches, you cannot get up onto or off a roof during a game (but you can start there and spend the game there (the entire unit has to fit). If their is a ground level door and roof door we've played that you can enter one and exit up top, but the distance has to be tracked vertically to be fair.

 

b. Being on a intact building roof has a 4+ cover save (assuming structural lips, pipes, etc providing cover from units not on the roof).

 

Always wanted to do a game where buildings in a city can be exploded to rubble...just not enough modeled versions to do that. We have done games where Bunkers could be exploded. Gets to be a grey/gray area on targeting a building or bunker that does not have a unit in it...

 

Overall, just make sure you are consistent and clear before the game starts, and all should be fine.

[Dan VK]

1. The overall building rules are optional (in terms of being inside them, assaulting them, etc).

All terrain rules are optional if you do not play with the type of terrain in question. Area terrain is optional if you play only using barricades. Intact buildings are optional if you only play with impassable buildings and/or ruins. The question is how to play with intact buildings.

 

2. A unit can either be in, out, or on top of a closed, intact building, bunker, or tower. Not split between these modes.

The rules state that a unit may be in a building or not. If they are in the building they are able to fire from the fire points or fire from the fire points and from the parapets, and the later situation adjusts damage rolls against the building.

 

Always wanted to do a game where buildings in a city can be exploded to rubble...just not enough modeled versions to do that. We have done games where Bunkers could be exploded. Gets to be a grey/gray area on targeting a building or bunker that does not have a unit in it...

Me, too. I am currently designing templates for foamcore buildings so I can do an entire "block" of habs with destroyed versions that are not a total pain to place models in (unlike the ruined buildings I have previously built).

 

Overall, just make sure you are consistent and clear before the game starts, and all should be fine.

Yup. It seems like the Golden Rule of Gaming wins the day again.

 

 

[Edit: Pssh, who needs spacing?]