Shooting/Charging at buildings?

[Morticon]

Really simple question-  but .....

 

How do I shoot at or charge an unoccupied building? Can I ?

 

Page 93:  "Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle" 

 

 

What about an unoccupied building?!

 

 

[Leonaides]

As in an intact structure (for example a bunker)? Hmmm - if its capable of shooting at you (automated weapons or the like), then I'd say treat it as an immobile vehicle (which is what most of the other building rules seem to do anyway). If its an un-armed structure, with no occupants, I'd say discuss with your opponent - there could be tactical advantages in preventing them from occupying such a building (for example if your army is unable to enter it / unable to defend the area but you want to deny your opponent the LOS) but be prepared for various movement shennanigans (charging a building to get another 5-7" distance away/towards the enemy)...

[Morticon]

Im thinking regarding the vengeance battery which counts as an unoccupied impassible building.  Can it be charged? Why?

[Seahawk]

"You cannot attack an unoccupied building (with shooting or in close combat)." 

 

Page 93.

[Morticon]

Thanks sea-hawk.  

I missed that line in between all the others.

 

I've just realised this is kinda crappy though- it cant be charged, but its only a T7, 2W, 3+ save gun <_<  Thats lame. 

Why were people going crazy about this?

[Fibonacci]

I don't have the rules but those are the stats for a gun emplacement.  You can always shoot a gun emplacement instead of the building.  And thanks to the oddly worded rules you can not charge a gun emplacement, but you can attack it if you are in base contact during the assault phase.

[Grey Mage]

Im thinking regarding the vengeance battery which counts as an unoccupied impassible building.  Can it be charged? Why?

They have a special rule that allows them to be targetted as if they were occupied.

[Morticon]

 

Im thinking regarding the vengeance battery which counts as an unoccupied impassible building.  Can it be charged? Why?

They have a special rule that allows them to be targetted as if they were occupied.

 

GM - Ive just read that now.  

 

Thing is, it seems like the most odd ruling!? They're emplaced guns meaning they're  T7, 2W - not an AV14 building.  

Whats the deal? Has GW stuffed this up again?!

[Seahawk]

No, Emplaced Guns means they're an AV14 building.

Gun Emplacements are T7, 2W, 3+ armor save.

And Grey Mage, the Firestorm Redoubt does not have that rule, only the Vengeance weapon batteries do.

So, to summarize for Morticon, the Firestorm Redoubt:

- Cannot have individual guns destroyed except through the building damage table.

- Cannot be targeted at all when unoccupied.

- Is essentially invulnerable and can shoot four skyfire/interceptor/twinlinked/BS2 lascannons.

[Morticon]

If you're going to make the argument that "emplaced guns" are different from "gun emplacements" you may be in for a hard time with the example given on page 97:

 

"The bastion also has several emplaced weapons: a heavy bolter on each facing, and an Icarus lascannon on the roof".

 

The bastion uses the word "Gun emplacement" in its upgrade ability and "emplaced heavy bolters" for the weapon description.. 

 

It would appear by this "gun emplacement" and "emplaced guns" are the same thing. 

[Seahawk]

Actually, no, they are not at all.

Emplaced guns and gun emplacements are spelled out as two very different things on two separate pages in distinct formats. Emplaced guns are always part of a building, have automated fire, don't have a statline, and can never be targeted separately. Gun emplacements are never part of a building, have their own statline, and do not have automated fire.

Seems GW has yet another fail to correct, in your example. Stuff on the roof of bastions are actually gun emplacements, and you must be on the roof to be able to fire them. However, since you are not occupying the building, the emplaced weapons there cannot be manually fired.

[Raeven]

No, Emplaced Guns means they're an AV14 building.

 

Gun Emplacements are T7, 2W, 3+ armor save.

 

 

And Grey Mage, the Firestorm Redoubt does not have that rule, only the Vengeance weapon batteries do.

 

So, to summarize for Morticon, the Firestorm Redoubt:

 

- Cannot have individual guns destroyed except through the building damage table.

- Cannot be targeted at all when unoccupied.

- Is essentially invulnerable and can shoot four skyfire/interceptor/twinlinked/BS2 lascannons.

 

The firestorm redoubt will not fire unless it is occupied.  Pg. 96 Emplaced Weapons

[Grey Mage]

No, Emplaced Guns means they're an AV14 building.

 

Gun Emplacements are T7, 2W, 3+ armor save.

 

 

And Grey Mage, the Firestorm Redoubt does not have that rule, only the Vengeance weapon batteries do.

 

So, to summarize for Morticon, the Firestorm Redoubt:

 

- Cannot have individual guns destroyed except through the building damage table.

- Cannot be targeted at all when unoccupied.

- Is essentially invulnerable and can shoot four skyfire/interceptor/twinlinked/BS2 lascannons.

The Vengeance Battery is what we were discussing- hence the quote. The firestorm redoubt needs no such rule, because as noted by Raeven it only fires when occupied- like all other weapons on buildings.

[Seahawk]

Ah, totally missed it, sorry. Also, he's right on the redoubt, my bad! I had remembered reading it otherwise. 

[nurglez]

Slightly off topic, but the Firestorm redoubt has a special rule.

 

Primary target: The emplaced quad icarus lascannons must fire at the nearest enemy flyer or flying monstrous creature unit within range and line of sight (then some rules about how it shoots the nearest enemy unit if none of these are within range or line of sight).

 

So technically this overrides the emplaced weapon rules, as it does not state "when occupied".

[Dam13n]

It is still an emplaced weapon and both manual and automated fire include the line "if a building is occupied..." (page 96)

 

The firestorm redoubt overrules the decision regarding manual/automated as it must fire automated, however, like all buildings in a game of 40k it can have units from either side embarked upon it. Therefore it has to follow the "if a building is occupied..." part of the rule. It isn't under the control of either player unless they occupy it.

 

The key word in the "primary target" rule that you quoted is "enemy" - unless a unit is embarked in the redoubt - it has no defined "enemy" as an unoccupied building is simply terrain - and is therefore neutral.

 

Now I'm not sure of the standard 40k rules regarding the vengeance battery. But if a single player has control of them surely it should be treated as one of their units and therefore targetable by the other players units - even though it is terrain. Though, GW neglected to include the rules in the Apocalypse book for the Vengeance Battery (and I haven't bought a Vengeance Battery yet) so I can't be sure.

 

If it is indeed un-targetable then it shouldn't be allowed in normal games of 40k. (although as an unoccupied building it would also fall under the neutral category, so much like the redoubt - shouldn't be able to fire at all unless occupied - which it can't be).

[Raeven]

On a slightly related topic, if a unit is embarked on top of the redoubt, can an enemy unit embark inside the redoubt underneath them?

[Grimtooth]

Not near my book at the moment, but is the wording on assaults that if you shoot at a UNIT that os the only UNIT you can assault or is the wording TARGET? If so then you could shoot at some of these buoldings/fortifications and then assault an actual unit correct?

[Raeven]

I don't know, will have to check.

 

Regarding the Vengeance Batteries, they are impassable buildings that are allowed to shoot "use automatic fire mode and be targeted by enemy attacks, even if unoccupied"

 

Since they cannot be occupied, they can never be manned, so always shoot in automatic mode.

[nurglez]

It is still an emplaced weapon and both manual and automated fire include the line "if a building is occupied..." (page 96)

The firestorm redoubt overrules the decision regarding manual/automated as it must fire automated, however, like all buildings in a game of 40k it can have units from either side embarked upon it. Therefore it has to follow the "if a building is occupied..." part of the rule. It isn't under the control of either player unless they occupy it.

The key word in the "primary target" rule that you quoted is "enemy" - unless a unit is embarked in the redoubt - it has no defined "enemy" as an unoccupied building is simply terrain - and is therefore neutral.

Now I'm not sure of the standard 40k rules regarding the vengeance battery. But if a single player has control of them surely it should be treated as one of their units and therefore targetable by the other players units - even though it is terrain. Though, GW neglected to include the rules in the Apocalypse book for the Vengeance Battery (and I haven't bought a Vengeance Battery yet) so I can't be sure.

If it is indeed un-targetable then it shouldn't be allowed in normal games of 40k. (although as an unoccupied building it would also fall under the neutral category, so much like the redoubt - shouldn't be able to fire at all unless occupied - which it can't be).

so based on that logic the vengeance turrets can't fire, as they have no enemy, as you can't embark in them.

 

gotta love clear concise rules :D

[Grey Mage]

It is still an emplaced weapon and both manual and automated fire include the line "if a building is occupied..." (page 96)

The firestorm redoubt overrules the decision regarding manual/automated as it must fire automated, however, like all buildings in a game of 40k it can have units from either side embarked upon it. Therefore it has to follow the "if a building is occupied..." part of the rule. It isn't under the control of either player unless they occupy it.

The key word in the "primary target" rule that you quoted is "enemy" - unless a unit is embarked in the redoubt - it has no defined "enemy" as an unoccupied building is simply terrain - and is therefore neutral.

Now I'm not sure of the standard 40k rules regarding the vengeance battery. But if a single player has control of them surely it should be treated as one of their units and therefore targetable by the other players units - even though it is terrain. Though, GW neglected to include the rules in the Apocalypse book for the Vengeance Battery (and I haven't bought a Vengeance Battery yet) so I can't be sure.

If it is indeed un-targetable then it shouldn't be allowed in normal games of 40k. (although as an unoccupied building it would also fall under the neutral category, so much like the redoubt - shouldn't be able to fire at all unless occupied - which it can't be).

so based on that logic the vengeance turrets can't fire, as they have no enemy, as you can't embark in them.

gotta love clear concise rules

No, this is different.

The vengeance battery says "can use automated attacks.... even when unoccupied".

The Firestorm redoubt explains how its automatic fire works- particularly that it fires at flyers and flying monstrous creatures first. Thats all. It doesnt address wether it can be used in automatic or manual mode in that rule. It instead has an entirely separate rule that states that the squad in the building cannot use manual targetting- the building instead uses automatic fire *with the noted changes*.

So where are you getting the idea it gets to ignore the normal parts of manual fire? Because thats nowhere in the text.

[Spinsanity]

 

 

 

 

The key word in the "primary target" rule that you quoted is "enemy" - unless a unit is embarked in the redoubt - it has no defined "enemy" as an unoccupied building is simply terrain - and is therefore neutral.

so based on that logic the vengeance turrets can't fire, as they have no enemy, as you can't embark in them.

 

 

No, this is different.

 

The vengeance battery says "can use automated attacks.... even when unoccupied".

 

 

Well, I trimmed all the excess. As Dam13n said, technically speaking, even though the battery can shoot unoccupied, it remains a neutral terrain feature until occupied and therefore has no legal enemy it can fire at...

 

So, in the end, is there any way I can shoot or assault it, or it is impervious to my fire because it is inoccupied?

[Seahawk]

On a slightly related topic, if a unit is embarked on top of the redoubt, can an enemy unit embark inside the redoubt underneath them?

 

Yes, because that's the only way any unit can assault a unit on the roof. Amusingly, if the building has emplaced weapons they can then put them to use (which means they can't assault), but the unit on the roof can't get down except by jumping.

 

To summarize (for realz, I got it right this time):

 

Vengeance Weapon Battery

- Cannot be occupied.

- Sentry Defense System allows it to use auto-fire, and it can be targeted by enemies.

 

Firestorm Redoubt

- Can be occupied.

- Works like a regular building with emplaced weapons, meaning it needs to be occupied to fire at all. 

- Fully Automated makes it only able to use auto-fire, not manual fire.

- Primary Target governs what it must shoot at.

 

 

As for the whole "it's neutral so it has no enemy" baloney, well, good luck with that. ;)

[Raeven]

The vengeance batteries are a special case. They are fortifications that only belong to one army. They can only fire automatically.

 

It is a good point though.

 

Player404, see my post above. Direct quote from the rule for the battery.

[Dam13n]

Player404 - That was my main point.

 

Now if the vengeance battery is going to work it must belong to one army or the other. If it does it also must be a viable target for the other army. Now most buildings cover this by embarking units, with the owner of the unit embarked taking ownership until they are vacated (or destroyed) somehow.

 

The problem is how these actually work within the rules. The rules for the vengeance battery, as quoted/referenced by others, seem to be really poorly written (even by 6th edition standards).

 

I used neutrality as it is an accurate description of most terrain in 40k. It belongs to neither army unless it's a building with a unit embarked. Now if the vengeance battery states that its rules permit it to shoot only one army and that army to target it in return despite the fact that no unit is embarked (in contravention of the standard rules) then that resolves that.

 

Up until this point nobody had quoted that rule (and I explained my ignorance of their wording earlier).