Lances vs Buildings

[Marik]

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?

 

Only for the purpose of shooting at not for damaging these are two separate acts and are resolved separately that is why we are told only to treat them as vehicles for the purpose of shooting at and charging not for damaging.

 

This is something that is only going to be resolved by a FAQ since we are stuck in an semantic argument

[Gentlemanloser]

Siding with Morollan here. You treat a building as if it was a vehicle for all instances of shooting at one. That's the RAW.

 

And yes, Vulkan makes his gauntlet twin linked. ;)

 

Only for the purpose of shooting at not for damaging these are two separate acts

 

Don't have the book here, but I suppose the argument is that Armour Penetration rolls are not part of a shooting attack?

 

That's, dodgey, at best.

 

How do you resolve a shooting attack versus a vehicle, if armour penetration isn't part of the process?

[rpnightsend]

This is something that is only going to be resolved by a FAQ since we are stuck in an semantic argument

I'm worried that this and certain other things (such as shaken/stunned results on passengers) may not be FAQ'd. In the past GW has expected to understand certain things without arguing over minutiae and this could be one of said things...

[Seahawk]

Well, like I said in the transport thread, I kicked it up the chain to top GW dawgs, so hopefully they will see the light of day.

[Lysere]

Siding with Morollan here. You treat a building as if it was a vehicle for all instances of shooting at one. That's the RAW.

 

And yes, Vulkan makes his gauntlet twin linked. <_<

 

Only for the purpose of shooting at not for damaging these are two separate acts

 

Don't have the book here, but I suppose the argument is that Armour Penetration rolls are not part of a shooting attack?

 

That's, dodgey, at best.

 

How do you resolve a shooting attack versus a vehicle, if armour penetration isn't part of the process?

 

Don't forget though that the issue is that the Lance Rule specifically states vehicle Armor values greater then 12. Not AV greater then 12.

[Morollan]

Don't forget though that the issue is that the Lance Rule specifically states vehicle Armor values greater then 12. Not AV greater then 12.

 

But, once again, we are specifically told to treat buildings as vehicles. It would be utterly redundant for the lance rule to state "treat vehicle and building AV higher than 12 as 12" when the building rules already cover that. It would effectively be saying "treat vehicle and vehicle AV higher than 12 as 12".

[dswanick]

Don't forget though that the issue is that the Lance Rule specifically states vehicle Armor values greater then 12. Not AV greater then 12.

 

But, once again, we are specifically told to treat buildings as vehicles. It would be utterly redundant for the lance rule to state "treat vehicle and building AV higher than 12 as 12" when the building rules already cover that. It would effectively be saying "treat vehicle and vehicle AV higher than 12 as 12".

And what is the purpose in saying Vehicle Armour Value if there is only Vehicle Armour Value and Building Armour Value and Building Armour Value is Vehicle Armour Value? Why not just put Armour Value?

[Morollan]

Don't forget though that the issue is that the Lance Rule specifically states vehicle Armor values greater then 12. Not AV greater then 12.

 

But, once again, we are specifically told to treat buildings as vehicles. It would be utterly redundant for the lance rule to state "treat vehicle and building AV higher than 12 as 12" when the building rules already cover that. It would effectively be saying "treat vehicle and vehicle AV higher than 12 as 12".

And what is the purpose in saying Vehicle Armour Value if there is only Vehicle Armour Value and Building Armour Value and Building Armour Value is Vehicle Armour Value? Why not just put Armour Value?

 

Because it makes precisely zero difference?

[dswanick]

Don't forget though that the issue is that the Lance Rule specifically states vehicle Armor values greater then 12. Not AV greater then 12.

 

But, once again, we are specifically told to treat buildings as vehicles. It would be utterly redundant for the lance rule to state "treat vehicle and building AV higher than 12 as 12" when the building rules already cover that. It would effectively be saying "treat vehicle and vehicle AV higher than 12 as 12".

And what is the purpose in saying Vehicle Armour Value if there is only Vehicle Armour Value and Building Armour Value and Building Armour Value is Vehicle Armour Value? Why not just put Armour Value?

 

Because it makes precisely zero difference?

Unless it makes precisely the difference that is important...

Otherwise save the ink and print "Armour Value" like GW does in every other instance of the phrase I can find in the BRB.

[Morollan]

To be honest, I give up. There are two paragraphs of rules on this subject on page 93 that are clear, concise and unambiguous. We treat building as vehicles when shooting at them. We could, if we wish, go through the shooting at vehicles section, replace every instance of "vehicle" with "building" and reprint that on page 93, but that would seem unneccessary and superfluous. Nevertheless, that is exactly what we are being told to do.

[Valkyrion]

'Counts as' and 'as if' are unnecessarily difficult.

 

If a model isn't a vehicle, but is treated as if it was a vehicle, why would that model ignore rules pertaining to vehicles even though it's treated as if it was a vehicle?

 

Space Wolves codex - Logan Grimnar - 'Wolf Guard units count as troops'.

What does that mean? Do they 'count as' but aren't? Do they score, even though they are elites counting as troops? In what order do they deploy in certain missions? Do they count for the purposes of minimum FOC or do you still need to take two units from the Troops section? As they 'count as' troops does that mean they are no longer elite choices or are they both?

 

Or is it simply; Wolf Guard = Troops.

 

In which case it would also be simply; Buildings = Vehicles.

 

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

 

So... what happens when you fire a lance at a building?

[Morollan]

The issue of 'counts as' has been addressed in various FAQs and the answers given point us very clearly in the direction that GW intend us to go. If something 'counts as' something else or 'moves as' something else then we treat it as that something else for any interaction with other rules.

 

Example:

Q: Does Writhing Worldscape cause every model moving through difficult terrain, moving as if in difficult terrain and counting as moving through difficult terrain to take a Dangerous Terrain test? (p41)

A: Yes.

 

And

 

Q. Are Wolf Guard Packs genuine Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites when fielded in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so, is this

optional? (p82)

A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation chart selections.

[Seahawk]

Refuted by the poor Tyranids' FAQ:

 

Q: Do enemy models assaulting a Venomthrope brood, or another friendly unit within range of its Spore Cloud, have their Initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting through the cloud?

 

A: No, as the Spore Cloud is not a piece of terrain.

 

...when the special rule in question says (well, used to say) they count as charging through difficult/dangerous terrain. This one didn't change from 5th to 6th, and back in 5th it was a major nerf and changing of the rules, because it was simply "Take the test? Get reduced to I1." Now it's "Go through terrain? Get reduced. Only take a test? No reduction" so it works now when it didn't back then.

 

"Counts-as" can mean one thing or another. GW is not consistent, and that's why we need this to be addressed.

[Morollan]

Fair enough there does appear to be one inconsistent note amongst the rules and FAQ's (although the fact that it is in the disgustingly poor Tyranid FAQ should perhaps give us a clue how much weight to lend to that particular point).

 

Nevertheless, what exactly is the inconsistency or ambiguity in the lance rules. We are told to treat vehicle AV >12 as 12 and we are told to shoot at buildings just as if shooting at vehicles. I really don't see the issue.

[DarkGuard]

Fair enough there does appear to be one inconsistent note amongst the rules and FAQ's (although the fact that it is in the disgustingly poor Tyranid FAQ should perhaps give us a clue how much weight to lend to that particular point).

 

Nevertheless, what exactly is the inconsistency or ambiguity in the lance rules. We are told to treat vehicle AV >12 as 12 and we are told to shoot at buildings just as if shooting at vehicles. I really don't see the issue.

 

What makes the Nid FAQ any worst than the normal ones when it comes to rules? It's an official GW document, and therefore should be treated the same as every other official GW document, regardless of the quality of the answers or personal opinion.

[Morollan]

Fair enough there does appear to be one inconsistent note amongst the rules and FAQ's (although the fact that it is in the disgustingly poor Tyranid FAQ should perhaps give us a clue how much weight to lend to that particular point).

 

Nevertheless, what exactly is the inconsistency or ambiguity in the lance rules. We are told to treat vehicle AV >12 as 12 and we are told to shoot at buildings just as if shooting at vehicles. I really don't see the issue.

 

What makes the Nid FAQ any worst than the normal ones when it comes to rules?

 

Ask any Nid player.

[DarkGuard]

Fair enough there does appear to be one inconsistent note amongst the rules and FAQ's (although the fact that it is in the disgustingly poor Tyranid FAQ should perhaps give us a clue how much weight to lend to that particular point).

 

Nevertheless, what exactly is the inconsistency or ambiguity in the lance rules. We are told to treat vehicle AV >12 as 12 and we are told to shoot at buildings just as if shooting at vehicles. I really don't see the issue.

 

What makes the Nid FAQ any worst than the normal ones when it comes to rules?

 

Ask any Nid player.

 

You misunderstand my point. But first I'll take your point and ask a Nid player. "Hey DarkGuard, what do you think of the Nid FAQ?" "DarkGuard, I think it's :blush:, but it's better than it used to be". :)

 

What I meant was that despite the rulings being not so great for Nid players, that shouldn't mean it carries less weight than the other FAQs. So if the Nid FAQ challenges the counts as principle set down by other FAQs, it's just as valid and that principle should be called into question.

[Morollan]

I took your word for it previously but, looking at the Tyranid codex, I'm actually not sure that their FAQ proves anything in regards to the issue of 'counts as'.

 

The Nid codex simply says that models must take a dangerous terrain test to represent the toxic effects of the cloud. It doesn't say they are moving through dangerous terrain, count as moving through dangerous terrain, moving as if in dangerous terrain or anything else of that ilk. They are simply using the mechanics of the test to represent something else.

[DarkGuard]

They are taking a dangerous terrain test, and the rulebook tells us that units taking a dangerous terrain test count as moving through difficult terrain, and therefore strike last in combat. That's the counts as part, at least in my understanding of it. And then the Nid FAQ overrules it, seemingly against modern GW convention according to your examples.

[Morollan]

They are taking a dangerous terrain test, and the rulebook tells us that units taking a dangerous terrain test count as moving through difficult terrain, and therefore strike last in combat. That's the counts as part, at least in my understanding of it. And then the Nid FAQ overrules it, seemingly against modern GW convention according to your examples.

 

Okay, I see where you're coming from on this. The 5e rulebook simply says that models who have to take the test are slowed to I1, not just models who actually move through difficult/dangerous terrain. The FAQ however says they are not slowed because they aren't moving through terrain.

 

I still suspect this is the result of a poorly written FAQ, as it actually changes something that is very specifcally written in the rulebook, but it does throw some doubt on whether 'counts as' means what it seems to mean on every other occasion.

[Seahawk]

Yea, that's what I was referring to, sorry, didn't have the book on me at the time. :unsure: