I'm still a bit confused over a couple of issues relating to buildings. Sorry but i don not have the rules handly, so i coannot cite specific pages, but . . .
1. If an infantry unit in tactical formation is only occupying and not defending a building, it can only be fired upon by artillery. I could find nothing about whether or not the occupying infantry unit can fire itself or not?
2. Only 1 unit can occupy or defend a small building, and 2 may occupy (and defend?) a large building?
3. There are rules governing infantry assaults on units defending a building, but I could find nothing about assaulting units merely occupying a building. Can such units be assaulted? Is such an assault limited to a single unit (for assaults on a small building) or2 units (for assaulst on a large building)?
I'm puzzled because it seems that I would be much better off merely occupying a building than defending it. If my understanding is correct, an occupying unit can only be fired on by artillery (hitting on 6s and only as the occupying unit is considered to be in cover?), and can only be assaulted by 1 enemy unit? have I missed something?
Kevin
Another Building Question
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
-
viperofmilan
- Sergeant - Panzer IIC

- Posts: 192
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:26 am
-
panda2
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad

- Posts: 168
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:22 pm
- Location: London
Re: Another Building Question
Firing by a unit occupying a building was covered in an earlier thread. Buildings block LOS so an occupying unit cannot fire out, I recall.
As for assaulting units that are occupying (or passing through in march column), there is IMO no need for the assaulting unit(s) to enter the building in the assault move. On p.77 it states
" All measurements to and from units in a building is taken to or from the nearest point of the perimeter of the buildings. The actual position of the units within the building is ignored for all purposes."
You therefore only need to move into contact with the perimeter of the buiding to assault an occupying unit. You can do this with as many units as you can physically manage, since none need enter.
Its also worth noting that the occupying unit gets none of the advantages of a defending unit. It will need to split its dice between all assaulting units and will also lose dice for being in rough terrain. On the plus side, perhaps, it has no flank or rear. However, it can't benefit from the special rules on rear support for defending units.
Andy D
As for assaulting units that are occupying (or passing through in march column), there is IMO no need for the assaulting unit(s) to enter the building in the assault move. On p.77 it states
" All measurements to and from units in a building is taken to or from the nearest point of the perimeter of the buildings. The actual position of the units within the building is ignored for all purposes."
You therefore only need to move into contact with the perimeter of the buiding to assault an occupying unit. You can do this with as many units as you can physically manage, since none need enter.
Its also worth noting that the occupying unit gets none of the advantages of a defending unit. It will need to split its dice between all assaulting units and will also lose dice for being in rough terrain. On the plus side, perhaps, it has no flank or rear. However, it can't benefit from the special rules on rear support for defending units.
Andy D
-
viperofmilan
- Sergeant - Panzer IIC

- Posts: 192
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:26 am
Re: Another Building Question
Thanks Andy for your quick response.
What do you think about the number of units that can defend a large building? Is it 1 or 2?
Thanks.
Kevin
What do you think about the number of units that can defend a large building? Is it 1 or 2?
Thanks.
Kevin
-
panda2
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad

- Posts: 168
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:22 pm
- Location: London
Re: Another Building Question
The quick reply was due to many hours spent pondering your exact question, before I spotted the lines on p.77!
On large buildings, I've not given it much thought, since I think you can't have them in the standard terrain set up rules. I expect the line is either a hangover from an earlier draft or is included for compleatness in case someone wishes to use them in a historical scenario. In any case, since the position of both units wouldn't matter, then any assaulting (or firing) unit(s) would be assaulting (or firing) on both the units in the building and would need to split their dice if the units in the buildings were occupying, but not if they were defending(?). Presumably, both units in the large building would also be able to fight (or fire) against all the enemies, splitting their dice if occupying, getting a full set of dice against each if defending. Long range artillery fire would be an exception.
Andy D
On large buildings, I've not given it much thought, since I think you can't have them in the standard terrain set up rules. I expect the line is either a hangover from an earlier draft or is included for compleatness in case someone wishes to use them in a historical scenario. In any case, since the position of both units wouldn't matter, then any assaulting (or firing) unit(s) would be assaulting (or firing) on both the units in the building and would need to split their dice if the units in the buildings were occupying, but not if they were defending(?). Presumably, both units in the large building would also be able to fight (or fire) against all the enemies, splitting their dice if occupying, getting a full set of dice against each if defending. Long range artillery fire would be an exception.
Andy D
-
BrettPT
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D

- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Another Building Question
You are correct that the reference to large buildings is a hangover from earlier drafts.
I believe you don't need to worry about them as the reference to large buildings is likely to be errata'd out.
All buildings are (will be ) small.
I believe you don't need to worry about them as the reference to large buildings is likely to be errata'd out.
All buildings are (will be ) small.
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A

- Posts: 5291
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Re: Another Building Question
I think you can have one unit in each building terrain piece, you can form larger villages with more than 1 terrain piece being set down touching another building. Each separate terrain piece can have 1 unit in it. so a village made up of 3 building terrain pieces should be allowed to have 3 units, 1 per terrain piece in it.
Hope that was not too muddled. I was wondering if that was what you meant by large building terrain pieces.
Hope that was not too muddled. I was wondering if that was what you meant by large building terrain pieces.
Re: Another Building Question
To confirm - The all references to large buildings will be errata'd out.
Only 1 unit will be allowed is a building, but multiple buildings can be placed together, so that eachbuilding has to be captured seperately.
A unit 'occupying' a building has the following advantages/disadvantages:
It is in rough terrain
It is in cover when fired at
It can only be fired at by artillery
It cannot fire out
It is not defending an obstacle when in combat - and will retire from the building as normal.
It still retains it's normal flanks and rear - therefore enemy get the normal supports when in combat against it.
Only 1 unit will be allowed is a building, but multiple buildings can be placed together, so that eachbuilding has to be captured seperately.
A unit 'occupying' a building has the following advantages/disadvantages:
It is in rough terrain
It is in cover when fired at
It can only be fired at by artillery
It cannot fire out
It is not defending an obstacle when in combat - and will retire from the building as normal.
It still retains it's normal flanks and rear - therefore enemy get the normal supports when in combat against it.
