shooting at a unit in a building with blunderbusses
what are the interpritations on the rules for this i played the watchtower yesterday and both me and my opponant felt shooting was done as normal hit on 4+ worked out great for me i shot 7 out of 12 dryads and killed the other 5 the next turn with a golum charge. but im playing a tourniment in a few weeks and watchtower is set for game 5 if the general feel is different from what i drew it means i can plan around it with my army
It’s the definition of ‘hit as normal’ from the ravening hordes list that is the tricky bit. Whether to go with ‘as normal’ meaning shooting in open terrain (which makes no sense), or ‘as normal’ as in following the rules as they were/are written about shooting at targets behind cover.
Normally all missile weapons are at -2 to hit against buildings, so Imo it should be played as hitting on a 6.
It is difficult to say as blunderbuss are a unique weapon. normally I treat it as a template weapon in which case on page 127 of the BRB it says D6 models are hit. it doesn’t exactly feel right though.
Shooting from within a building was answered a few years ago: your unit width is considered one of the sides of the building and S3 with +1S per extra floor.
If it’s a circular building (or some such), either play it as to which direction windows are facing (and use the width) or choose a direction and use the diameter. (This circular building is my thoughts on it, not from the FAQ).
“When they shoot they project a “fire zone” the width of the unit and 12” straight forward. Any model within this is a potential target and is hit on a 4+. The only exceptions are models behind extremely substantial cover such as hills or a building. Models behind walls or in woods are hit as normal."
so the unit is not behind a building, they are behind walls. it seems like blunderbuss can fire through walls without any problem.
so the unit is not behind a building, they are behind walls. it seems like blunderbuss can fire through walls without any problem.
Da Crusha
Hmmm. To my thinking when I've read this I've always thought that it was referring to models that are partly covered by a wall, not standing on the other side of a wall. That's an interesting distinction as I would argue that a model completely behind a wall would no longer be in line of sight, and couldn't be fired at anyway.
My thinking about them making a statement regarding walls is that the blunderbuss isn't a finesse missile weapon so there's no real need to aim carefully at opponents partly concealed by a wall (or by woods, in that case of the rules) and the blunderbuss just needs to be pointed in the general direction and the big spray of hot molten lead and shrapnel take care of finding the target for the shooter... hence no penalty to shooting.
Please... tell me if I've read into this wrong!!
~N
"When they shoot they project a "fire zone" the width of the unit and 12" straight forward. Any model within this is a potential target and is hit on a 4+. The only exceptions are models behind extremely substantial cover such as hills or a building. Models behind walls or in woods are hit as normal."
so the unit is not behind a building, they are behind walls. it seems like blunderbuss can fire through walls without any problem.
Da Crusha
I would have translated them as being behind the building as they are in the building. If they're on top of the building and you can draw true LoS I would treat them as being behind a wall.
the only criteria needed to fire at a unit inside a building is 1) they can draw line of site to the building and 2) it lies within their forward arc. then the unit is supposed to be treated as behind hard cover, which doesn’t apply to blunderbuss. pg 127 BRB
I would say D6 hits, like with a template. I think the building should offer some protection after all, but BBs shouldn’t be useless against troops in buildings either.
the only criteria needed to fire at a unit inside a building is 1) they can draw line of site to the building and 2) it lies within their forward arc. then the unit is supposed to be treated as behind hard cover, which doesn't apply to blunderbuss. pg 127 BRB
I think Da Crusha has it right ith the quote in the post above.
In strictly RAW fashion, the models are not ‘behind’ a building and therefore there is no ill effect in terms of the units shooting.
My interpretation of this statement is that ‘very substantial cover’ is supposed to mean anything that blocks shots completely. The blunderbuss rules are supposed to represent the fact that vast quantities of shrapnel are being thrown out into that area, so accuracy is not important. Only something so substantial that it completely stops all the shrapnel is going to stop a unit being hit. The phrase is therefore there to stop anything silly, like deploying your blunders right up aainst one side of a castle wall and arguing that your fire zone should hit units in the courtyard.
Therefore, my RAI interpretation would be that, if a unit can shoot out of the building, blunderbusses can fire in with no ill effect. However, if the building is a windowless (or near windowless) solid construction then it seems irrational for blunders to have thier full effect and I would consider such a building to offer ‘very substantil cover.’