Shooting/Charging at buildings?

[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?

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.

Actually, you can access the roof on the Redoubt without going into the building. There's a ladder.

[Raeven]

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).

 

 

No, there is no rule that permit it to only shoot one army.  It's RAI.  Seems that they expect you to know, without ever saying so, the player that puts the points into the model owns the model at the start of the game.

 

You buy the Battery (or two).  You deploy them.  Unless you want to play a game of "TAG, it's mine!" with each battery, the act of deploying the Battery puts it in your FoC and there is nothing your opponent can do to take control of the Battery because they cannot enter the building and it isn't a Gun Emplacement.

[Morticon]

For what its worth the wording is (only found out earlier):

 

"Sentry Defence: a building with this special rule can use automated fire against enemy units and be targeted by enemy attacks even if its unoccupied"

 

I wouldnt argue this in a tourney, but - can you charge it? It can be "targetted by enemy attacks", but does that mean you can charge? 

[Raeven]

Yes. Assault is an enemy attack.

[Grey Mage]

"Who is the target of your assault?"

 

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?

Impervious is the redoubt, vulnerable is the vengeance battery.

[nurglez]

To me, it is quite obvious what is intended. The vengeance battery shoots at your enemy, and can be targeted, while the redoubt fires at enemy flyers while a squad is inside. However the RAW doesn't support this, which is rather stupid.

 

Guess i'm unlikely to bring my redoubt to a tournament unless they issue their own ruling on it.

[Raeven]

How so? Both automated and manual fire rules require the building be occupied in order to fire. The redoubt special rules does not over rule that limitation. Just prevents occupants from using manual fire mode.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

No, there is no rule that permit it to only shoot one army. It's RAI. Seems that they expect you to know, without ever saying so, the player that puts the points into the model owns the model at the start of the game.

 

But that's not how Fortifications work. As shown by the ADL and it's Guns.

 

Either player can claim ownership of the Gun and use it, regardless of who paid the points for it.

 

Ownership is usually determined by contact with a unit from a players army.

[dswanick]

 

No, there is no rule that permit it to only shoot one army. It's RAI. Seems that they expect you to know, without ever saying so, the player that puts the points into the model owns the model at the start of the game.

 

But that's not how Fortifications work. As shown by the ADL and it's Guns.

 

Either player can claim ownership of the Gun and use it, regardless of who paid the points for it.

 

Ownership is usually determined by contact with a unit from a players army.

An ADL and it's gun are not "Fortifications", they are "Battlefield Debris".  Different rules, in different sections of the book - therefore different operation.

[Gentlemanloser]

Isn't an ADL purchased under the Fortification FoC slot?

I've not got access to the BRB at work to check anymore.

Edit: My point was rather that stuff purchased in that FoC slot is 'neutral', unless controlled by either player, usually via contact by thier own units.

Edit2: I suppose I should have used a Bastion in my post above, rather than the ADL with Gun.

[nurglez]

How so? Both automated and manual fire rules require the building be occupied in order to fire. The redoubt special rules does not over rule that limitation. Just prevents occupants from using manual fire mode.

to me, its "obvious" that the intent of the vengeance batteries is for them to be able to shoot. Otherwise what would be the point in them. I understand the rules and how they disagree, however why would they release a building with a weapon on it that can't shoot? I understand discussing the rules for the sake of it, but if you played someone with the vengeance battery would you honestly not let them shoot it at you?

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 but if you played someone with the vengeance battery would you honestly not let them shoot it at you?

 

Probably depends on whether they let you shot back at it.

[Dam13n]

I think the main problem is they wrote the rules to work in games of apocalypse - and rushed them (hence the poor wording).  They then realised that they would sell more if they bolted them into normal games of 40k as well without actually taking the time to think about how they would work.

 

The RAI is obvious, which is why the awfully worded RAW is inexcusable.

 

It should be obvious to most people that the rules should state:

 

"A Vengeance Weapon Emplacement always counts as being under the control of the player who purchased it as their fortification.  As no units may embark upon it, it always fires using the "automated fire" rules from the building rules found in the 40k rulebook.  Also, as it is under the control of one player, it may be targeted by an opposing army as though it were occupied."

 

add:

 

"A Vengeance Weapon Emplacement that is being used as Battlefield Terrain and not as a purchased Fortification is considered to be inoperable, it therefore cannot be fired by any means."

(Which covers it's use as normal terrain.)

 

Now this wasn't difficult to write by any means, so why GW can't seem to manage it says a lot about the quality (or lack thereof) of the Games Development team.

[Grey Mage]

 

 but if you played someone with the vengeance battery would you honestly not let them shoot it at you?

 

Probably depends on whether they let you shot back at it.

Seeing as the rules say both of you can do these things I dont understand why this is even a question?

[Gentlemanloser]

We know the RAW is broken.  By RAW, it's a neutral peice of terrain.  Purchasing it does not give you ownership of it.

 

As it's neutral, it has no enemy.  And can't fire, nor be fired upon.  I suppose you could always rule that it is able to shoot at, and be shoot at by both players.

 

Now, personally I (and I think *everyone* else posting here) wouldn't in game stop an opponent from using it to shoot at me.  We all know how it should work, and how it sohuld have been written.

 

But if my opponent starts pulling shenanigans and claiming in return I *can't* shoot back at it,  then I'd break out the RAW and stop them using it to shoot at me.

[Raeven]

 

How so? Both automated and manual fire rules require the building be occupied in order to fire. The redoubt special rules does not over rule that limitation. Just prevents occupants from using manual fire mode.

to me, its "obvious" that the intent of the vengeance batteries is for them to be able to shoot. Otherwise what would be the point in them. I understand the rules and how they disagree, however why would they release a building with a weapon on it that can't shoot? I understand discussing the rules for the sake of it, but if you played someone with the vengeance battery would you honestly not let them shoot it at you?

 

I thought you were talking about the Redoubt.  The rules for the Redoubt are much clearer than the Vengeance Batteries.  You know who owns them and when they shoot based on who occupies the buildings.

 

I'm 100% with you on the Vengeance Batteries.  You buy them, they are yours.  Your opponent cannot take control of them, because they cannot enter their building.  So they sit and happily shoot automatically at any opponent that comes along.

 

 

But if my opponent starts pulling shenanigans and claiming in return I *can't* shoot back at it,  then I'd break out the RAW and stop them using it to shoot at me.

 

Rightfully so.

[Fibonacci]

 

 

But if my opponent starts pulling shenanigans and claiming in return I *can't* shoot back at it,  then I'd break out the RAW and stop them using it to shoot at me.

 

Rightfully so.

or .....

Since it automaically shoots at the closest enemy, on your turn it shoots at your enemy.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm 100% with you on the Vengeance Batteries. You buy them, they are yours. Your opponent cannot take control of them, because they cannot enter their building. So they sit and happily shoot automatically at any opponent that comes along.

This is what actually needs rules from GW on.

Currently, it's not yours just becuase you bought it. Much in the same way a Bastion, Landing Pad or ADL with Quad Gun isn't yours. Even if it was you who used a FoC slot and spent the points for them.

Since it automaically shoots at the closest enemy, on your turn it shoots at your enemy.

Indeed!

Edit: Vengeance Battery question.

Can your opponent move within 1" of a Vengeance Battery you have placed?