Buildings in the 7th edition?

[Lost Vyper]

How many dares to enter :) ?

Hi!

How many people use buildings in their tables and if so, with what armor value? We have had games with AV12 HP4 buildings and there´s something funky in the rules...if you are SAFER going in to RUINS than in to a building, isn´t there something wrong there? :eek:

Plus you can score points in Maelstrom missions from buildings...--> i NEVER go inside one (as an Eldar player)

Is the way to correct this, giving every building AV14 HP4? Or is there a better way?

- Lost Vyper

[This Dave]

How many dares to enter :) ?

Hi!

How many people use buildings in their tables and if so, with what armor value? We have had games with AV12 HP4 buildings and there´s something funky in the rules...if you are SAFER going in to RUINS than in to a building, isn´t there something wrong there? :eek:

Plus you can score points in Maelstrom missions from buildings...--> i NEVER go inside one (as an Eldar player)

Is the way to correct this, giving every building AV14 HP4? Or is there a better way?

- Lost Vyper

There was an old Epic 40K game on computers called Final Liberation. It actually had that same problem. Ruins gave good cover but in an intact building you could collapse the building fairly easily and auto kill anything inside it. Maybe GW is going for that old school feel. :)

[Charon]

Never understood buildings.
Ruins give better cover and are basically indestructible. They are not dangerous (no collapsing floors, no unexploded amunition) and are most of the time not even difficult.
While buildings literally kill people inside, give worse cover and are effected by flamer special rules.

[Caitsidhe]

Games Workshop is just staffed by people that don't understand their own damn rules. The fact that Buildings are almost all dangerous deathtraps that tend to reduce your field of fire and number of guns able to fire is hilarious. The only Fortifications I see used on a regular basis are the Skyshield and Aegis.

[Lost Vyper]

Fe. Eldar Rangers...

in ruins 3+/2+ (if gone to ground) cover save

in a building (penetrating hit) 5+ armor save..highly logical...not...

[Allen Broussard]

Why would you say buildings give worse cover?


You literally cannot shoot a unit that is inside a building unless you have flamers or can toss in a grenade.

[Caitsidhe]

Why would you say buildings give worse cover?


You literally cannot shoot a unit that is inside a building unless you have flamers or can toss in a grenade.

Because units in a Building give you a 2 for 1 option. Destroy the building and cripple or destroy the unit inside. Most of the time a building won't have any kind of save either. :D I would far rather fire Melta-Guns or other nasty AP-1 or 2 weapons into a building and cost my opponent all his investment in the building, take out all its guns at once, and damage the soft tender bits inside. Ironically, the types of units that would hide in a building are PRECISELY the ones least likely to survive destroying one.

[40kGamer]

It also seems funny that you can collapse a building with haywire grenades.

[John Bower]

Hp's on buildings was a really bad idea...

[Lord Krungharr]

Damn, and I was thinking about getting a Bastion! Looks like a Skyshield is the way to go for my Guard and Iron Warriors now (not at the same time of course)

[Lost Vyper]

I would go for a Skyshield too, we have a Bastion in our FLGC and no one uses it. I used it ONCE (just to try it out) in the 6th edition...

[Krefey]

Let's say I have a unit of grots cowering in a building vs a unit of grots cowering in soem ruins. A tactical squad of marines decides to shoot at each unit. The tac squad firing at the building is wasting all their bolter rounds that can't hurt the building, thus reducing the possible casualties that my poor grots might otherwise be subjected to. It's only when you get units that are dedicated anti-vehicle squads that aren't wasting small arms fire that the building offers worse protection overall.

[maartendp]

I can zee the logic, buildings are destroyable, ruins are already destroyed. So ruins give cover (and count as dificult terrain), units in buildings can't be shot at ( except with flamers and grenades) though I do think buildings (and vehicles for that matter) have to low armour values

[John Bower]

I can zee the logic, buildings are destroyable, ruins are already destroyed. So ruins give cover (and count as dificult terrain), units in buildings can't be shot at ( except with flamers and grenades) though I do think buildings (and vehicles for that matter) have to low armour values

There is this thing that people see the worst case scenario; yes a building can be knocked down but... Most of them are AV14 and 1 is a 15, unless you're Eldar that's not that easy to put a dent in. Lascannons glance on a 5 and need no less than a 6 to pen. Or ofc the Aquila they need a 6 even to glance the sucker. It's why they put HP's on; if you remember in 6th buildings couldn't be glanced to death, all you would do is knock out a model inside on a glance. Now of course you knock points off it.

[Morgrim]

A collapsing building hurting models makes sense, but if it is something like a bastion then making it collapse should take an orbital bombardment or a titan jumping up and down on it. Might be interesting to try toughening buildings up by halving damage from pens, ignoring glances, and saying that proper building codes apply here? I mean, basing this off real world weapons most anti-tank shells will gouge a nice chunk out of a solid wall but won't affect its structural integrity until it properly LOOKS like a ruin. So once you've trashed a building it becomes a ruin and play continues.

[John Bower]

A collapsing building hurting models makes sense, but if it is something like a bastion then making it collapse should take an orbital bombardment or a titan jumping up and down on it. Might be interesting to try toughening buildings up by halving damage from pens, ignoring glances, and saying that proper building codes apply here? I mean, basing this off real world weapons most anti-tank shells will gouge a nice chunk out of a solid wall but won't affect its structural integrity until it properly LOOKS like a ruin. So once you've trashed a building it becomes a ruin and play continues.

In the last edition they DID ignore glancing hits; and had no hull points; it was pen or nothing. I think a glance caused a single model to take a saveable wound but apart from that it was pen or nothing. I disagree on your idea that nothing can damage them; there are weapons in 40k designed to blow buildings apart (melta guns, Demolisher cannons, Chainfists etc.) but I do think the addition of glancing hits and hull points just made them silly. And makes the multi part buildings daft I mean take the Aquila Stronpoint, how are you supposed to blow up part of it? It's a solid lump despite being technically 2 buildings. You can't remove part of it so it should have 9 Hull points really; just both parts added together, I had the problem today; blew up the Vortex part, so how do I represent that? The other part was untouched until (hehe this was funny) it got hit by a vortex from one of the unused missiles in the silo after that had gone. Even then it only suffered a 'wrecked' result. That reminds me; I'll put a question in the rules I can't answer myself.