Lances vs Buildings

[Seahawk]

Does the "Lance" special rule work against buildings?

 

Group A says "Yes, because buildings are treated as if they were vehicles."

 

I say "No, because buildings are not vehicles."

 

 

Group A's reasoning:

Page 93 states, "Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building as if it was a vehicle".

 

To me, that says that any special rule that would function against a vehicle, also functions against a building, because the building is treated as if it was a vehicle.

 

 

My reasoning:

 

"Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move..."

 

 

But especially:

 

"buildings don't use Hull Points" (p.92)

 

"Every vehicle has a number of Hull Points..." (p.70)

 

So:

If. All vehicles have hull points.

and. Buildings don't have hull points.

then. Buildings are not vehicles.

 

Buildings are like vehicles, but they are not actual vehicles, and so Lance does not affect them. The rules make a distinction between what a vehicle is and what a building is, and it's pretty clear they are not the same.

 

 

So what do you think?

[Morollan]

"Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building as if it was a vehicle"

 

You've answered your own question. You're shooting at a building and pg93 specifically says you treat it as a vehicle.

[Seahawk]

"As if it was a vehicle" does not make it a vehicle though. Right? A walker uses the Infantry rules for movement, but that doesn't make it Infantry and susceptible to Razorwire, or other things that only affect Infantry, does it?

[Morollan]

"As if it was a vehicle" does not make it a vehicle though. Right?

 

No, it is not a building. But for the purposes of shooting at or charging, it is treated as one.

 

Put it this way; if lance weapons did not work against buildings then in what way are we shooting at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle?

[DarkGuard]

The lance rules specifies "vehicle armour values". The main question is whether a building's armour values count as a vehicle armour value due to the section in the building rules saying that buildings use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. It then says you have to agree the armour value to use those rules, which would imply that you use all the rules associated with that armour value, including lance. However, if we say that we have a building armour value, that's not a vehicle armour value, and so therefore lance shouldn't apply. At this point, I'm leaning more towards Seahawk's point of view as the lance rule specifies vehicle armour values, not armour values in general which would include buildings.

[Morollan]

The lance rules specifies "vehicle armour values". The main question is whether a building's armour values count as a vehicle armour value due to the section in the building rules saying that buildings use aspects of the transport vehicle rules. It then says you have to agree the armour value to use those rules, which would imply that you use all the rules associated with that armour value, including lance. However, if we say that we have a building armour value, that's not a vehicle armour value, and so therefore lance shouldn't apply. At this point, I'm leaning more towards Seahawk's point of view as the lance rule specifies vehicle armour values, not armour values in general which would include buildings.

 

I then refer you to the question I asked: if lance weapons did not work against buildings then in what way are we shooting at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle (as per page 93)?

[Seahawk]

To me, that simply states that you use a similar process to shoot at a building as you do a vehicle. Roll to hit, roll to penetrate. The two important notes though, are that you do not use the vehicle damage chart (because it is not a vehicle) and you do not reduce the amount of Hit Points it doesn't have because it is not a vehicle.

 

Basically, everything else in the book points to it not being a vehicle, but one sentence (that still doesn't say it's a vehicle) is allowed to reverse that?

[Morollan]

We are told, very specifically, that units may shoot at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle. The lance rule tells us that they count vehicle armour values higher than 12 as 12. For shooting purposes, building = vehicle. If the lance rule does not work then we are not shooting at it as if it was a vehicle. In fact, I'm not sure what we are doing at all because we're ignoring the section of the rules that is giving us that information! :rolleyes:

[DarkGuard]

You're using those rules, but against the building's armour value. It's a building armour value, not a vehicle armour value. The aspects of the rules that apply or those that point out to you how to use weapons in relation to armour values in general. At least that's how it appears.

[Warsmith IV]

We are told, very specifically, that units may shoot at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle. The lance rule tells us that they count vehicle armour values higher than 12 as 12. For shooting purposes, building = vehicle. If the lance rule does not work then we are not shooting at it as if it was a vehicle. In fact, I'm not sure what we are doing at all because we're ignoring the section of the rules that is giving us that information! :rolleyes:

 

I don't understand why other people don't understand this. This is clearly what the rulebook says.

[Morollan]

You're using those rules, but against the building's armour value. It's a building armour value, not a vehicle armour value. The aspects of the rules that apply or those that point out to you how to use weapons in relation to armour values in general. At least that's how it appears.

 

Again, how do we "shoot at a building as if it were a vehicle" if we decide not to treat a building armour value in the same way as a vehicle armour value?

 

There seems to be a huge blank spot amonst B&C members over what "counts as" and "as if" and other such terms actually mean.

 

If unit A counts as X then any rules that apply to X apply to unit A.

 

If unit A moves as X then any rules that apply to the movement of X apply to unit A when moving.

 

If unit A shoots as X then any rules that apply to the shooting of X apply to unit A when shooting.

 

Buildings count as vehicles when being shot at. Any rules that apply to shooting at vehicles will apply to shooting at buildings unless specifically noted otehrwise (eg hull points).

[DarkGuard]

It's just a bit of dodgy wording, as usual. And as usual, I don't mind how it's played, and will wait for the FAQ. And even then, I won't care which way the ruling goes.

 

But playing devils advocate can be fun. :rolleyes:

[Marik]

Put it this way; if lance weapons did not work against buildings then in what way are we shooting at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle?

 

Devils advocate:

 

Perhaps it is a reference to how template weapons are applied, shots against immobilized targets, and the protection of the occupants?

[rpnightsend]

But playing devils advocate can be fun. :P

There seems to be a heck of a lot of this on this forum.

 

In the same vein, are you implying Melta Bombs can't be used against buildings? They can only be used against MC's and vehicles, but they aren't thrown (which are allowed to be thrown into a building during the shooting phase). Does that mean you can never use Melta Bombs against a building because it isnt actually a vehicle?

[Morollan]

Put it this way; if lance weapons did not work against buildings then in what way are we shooting at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle?

 

Devils advocate:

 

Perhaps it is a reference to how template weapons are applied, shots against immobilized targets, and the protection of the occupants?

 

Then it should say that. We can't infer it from what is written on pg 93.

[ShinyRhino]

it should be noted that the application of AP1/2 weapons IS noted as functional against buildings, while the absence of Lance is conspicuous (sp?).

[Lysere]

In the middle of flipping through the rules myself at the moment but how I see it is this. A lance weapon is designed to pierce through armor doing damage to the internal structure of the vehicle, unlike most weapons which just attempt to blow the armor open and do serious damage.

 

Against a building though a small beam piercing through means nothing to it, sure the squad inside might not like it but the building itself could care less. Meanwhile something like a battle cannon blowing chunks of the wall off is bad news to the building, less so to a heavily reinforced vehicle like a land raider.

[Marik]

Put it this way; if lance weapons did not work against buildings then in what way are we shooting at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle?

 

Devils advocate:

 

Perhaps it is a reference to how template weapons are applied, shots against immobilized targets, and the protection of the occupants?

 

Then it should say that. We can't infer it from what is written on pg 93.

 

That's GW for you.

 

But what if it is only a reference to the actual shooting rules (i.e. roll to hit portion of the shooting phase) and not all inclusive for the entire phase (wounding, damage, etc) ?

[Morollan]

Put it this way; if lance weapons did not work against buildings then in what way are we shooting at an occupied building as if it was a vehicle?

 

Devils advocate:

 

Perhaps it is a reference to how template weapons are applied, shots against immobilized targets, and the protection of the occupants?

 

Then it should say that. We can't infer it from what is written on pg 93.

 

That's GW for you.

 

But what if it is only a reference to the actual shooting rules (i.e. roll to hit portion of the shooting phase) and not all inclusive for the entire phase (wounding, damage, etc) ?

 

Then it should say that. We can't infer it from what is written on pg 93.

 

Seriously guys, is this some sort of wind up? Buildings are treated as vehicles for the purposes of shooting and charging.

 

They're not treated as vehicles only on a Tuesday.

 

They're not treated as vehicles for a bit of shooting but not all of it (unless specifically stated otherwise)

 

They're not treated as vehicles when we feel like it.

 

BUILDING = VEHICLE WHEN WE SHOOT OR CHARGE IT.

[Marik]

That's GW for you.

 

But what if it is only a reference to the actual shooting rules (i.e. roll to hit portion of the shooting phase) and not all inclusive for the entire phase (wounding, damage, etc) ?

 

Then it should say that. We can't infer it from what is written on pg 93.

 

Seriously guys, is this some sort of wind up? Buildings are treated as vehicles for the purposes of shooting and charging.

 

They're not treated as vehicles only on a Tuesday.

 

They're not treated as vehicles for a bit of shooting but not all of it (unless specifically stated otherwise)

 

They're not treated as vehicles when we feel like it.

 

BUILDING = VEHICLE WHEN WE SHOOT OR CHARGE IT.

 

 

Dude chill I agree that it needs to be clearer but this is the same book that has a blast weapons affecting non-los targets and yet a wound allocation system that negates it. All I am doing is trying to present arguments that will arise and hopefully put to rest so that this issue doesn’t pop back up 100 times.

 

Shooting =/= Damaging as these are two different events that occur and are separate rolls. This is why we have phrases like roll to hit & wound as normal not just hit as normal with the implication being wound as normal also.

 

If lance were intended to affect structures the same as vehicles then it would specifically say treat all AV greater than 12 as 12 and not all vehicle armor greater than 12 as 12.

 

When rolling to hit the target etc you are using the vehicle “targeting rules” when rolling for damage you are treating it as a building which lance doesn’t affect.

 

By your argument you would roll on the vehicle damage table for a building penetration because it is still part of the shooting attack and being treated as a vehicle. .

[DarkGuard]

Seriously guys, is this some sort of wind up? Buildings are treated as vehicles for the purposes of shooting and charging.

 

They're not treated as vehicles only on a Tuesday.

 

They're not treated as vehicles for a bit of shooting but not all of it (unless specifically stated otherwise)

 

They're not treated as vehicles when we feel like it.

 

BUILDING = VEHICLE WHEN WE SHOOT OR CHARGE IT.

 

Calm down Morollan. If the rules were clear on this and weren't ambiguous this thread wouldn't exist. Just because some people don't agree with you doesn't mean you get to post like that, so dial it down a bit please.

 

I think Marik has spelled out my own feelings on the topic quite nicely. Lance says vehicle armour value, not all armour values. Therefore buildings don't come into effect. You follow the rules that apply to all armour values.

 

So, with rpnightsend's example, meltabombs can't be used either, as they only specify vehicles and MCs, not buildings which are different.

 

Stupid? Perhaps. But you know what this rulebook's writing is like. It'll be FAQed soon and things set straight.

[Morollan]

Pg 93, final paragraph:

 

When shooting a building, roll to hit and for armour penetration normally.

 

So we're told to shoot at a building just as if it was a vehicle and to roll for armour pen as normal. How do we roll for armour penetration when shooting a vehicle with a lance weapon? We treat vehicle AVs higher than 12 as 12. I really do not see how this is even a debate.

[DarkGuard]

The reason it's a debate is because the lance rule says "vehicle AV", not "building AV". If they effected buildings why specify vehicles?

[Morollan]

The reason it's a debate is because the lance rule says "vehicle AV", not "building AV". If they effected buildings why specify vehicles?

 

We are told to treat buildings as vehicles so why would they need to specify that at all?

[Seahawk]

We are not told to treat buildings like vehicles. Here's a better explained version of how I see it:

 

The sentence on page 93 says, "Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." This only applies to the act of shooting, not to any effects that special weapons have. So you could shoot at a building even if two units were in close combat inside of it, because the building is not locked in combat, just as vehicles are not locked in close combat (aside from Walkers).

 

Lance weapons only get the special armor downgrade against units that are in the category of Vehicles. Buildings are not in the category of Vehicles; there is nothing in the Buildings section that says they 'count as vehicles'. 'Nuff said.