Age of Strife

If I shoot at a building, and pen or glance it, is the weapons stats used for the auto wound caused to the unit inside?

No

because?

KInG wrote:If I shoot at a building, and pen or glance it, is the weapons stats used for the auto wound caused to the unit inside?

Yes. As per page 93, "If a glancing hit is scored, one model inside the building suffers a Wound with the Ignores Cover special rule."
Ignores cover means that a cover save cannot be taken against the wound.

Page 94 goes on to say that the controlling player of the occupying unit allocates and resolves Wounds to his unit. The controlling player will then roll any applicable saves. Since this (the controlling player allocating wounds) is the only specified difference listed to the wound allocation process, these wounds will be resolved as normal meaning that the stats from the weapon used to hit the building will be applied to the wound caused to the occupying unit, which may deny an armor save.

It should also be noted quite how many different rules apply to buildings, eg it has its own damage table that goes up to7, 2d6str6 +explodesradius.That templates et al work differently.. and there is a paragraph about lobbing any sort of grenade through firepoints..v movie moment, but an awful lot of extra rules.(d6xd3x#number of models attacking it hits iirc)

Have you guys got used to billy no special weapon always lobbing a frag/Krak offensively(guard buy 1 launcher,use the other freeby for some nice synergy)+precision shot sniping out the ccw guy on your way in using your (ch) (its not game changing-until it happens)
I'm retraining a few people round here with that ninjaness over the next fortnight.

Is the storm bad Tw?

killmaimburn wrote:Is the storm bad Tw?

Yeah, pretty bad. Started as a lot of rain, changed to hail and then snow.

Now snowing pretty hard, winds 25-35 mph gusting to 50, expected accumulations 8" to 1 1/2 feet.

Thanks for asking! Should be okay though, we're not going to get hit as bad as the county to the east.

Why do you say it uses the pofile of the weapon attacking the building? It doesn't state that when it gives the details of the auto wound. Nowhere else in the rules do we make this assumption, eg we don't use the weapon profile when a vehicle blows up to cause the wounds to the models inside.

I'm with Bane there. If you use the weapon profile on the occupants, the same should apply when destroying vehicles.

BANE wrote: eg we don't use the weapon profile when a vehicle blows up to cause the wounds to the models inside.

That's because when a vehicle explodes, the rules tell us that the unit suffers a number of hits at S4 equal to the number of occupants and you resolve these as for shooting hits.

As for the building, when the building suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, the unit inside suffers a wound.

The only part of the buildings rule that references vehicles is on page 93 where it says that, "Moving into or out of a building works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle."

I think tw, it says s6 hit with ap - does it not?

The fact the building rules don't give any characters for the S and Ap of the auto wound says to me it's the firers weapon. Which sits with me fine if it pens, but a glance?..?? The ammunition didn't even enter the building therefore it should offer a profile for the wound.

It doesnt give you a S value, its an auto wound with the ignores cover rule, its suppose to represent a piece of falling rubble, not the weapon shot going into the building and hiting a bloke inside. It gives you the rules you use, auto wound with ignores cover rule, it does not say use the profile of the weapon causing the hit on the building.

I dont understand the logic of just adding the weapons profile just because it doesnt say you dont. If we do that there is a whole can of worms about to open.

I consider myself fairly flexiable with enforcing the rules that i feel my oppenant has interepted wrongly and often go with letting them do it there way until i can show them the right way, this would not be the case with this interaperation.

Excuse spelling, trying to type and hold a model togther at the same time.

Page 94 says that the controller of the occupying unit allocates the wounds, one wound at a time.

Then it goes on to say, "If the whole unit is using the same save, you might find it easier to roll all the saves together and then simply remove the appropriate number of models as casualties."

So we are told the following;

If the building is hit (glance or pen), the occupying unit suffers a wound, and the occupying unit gets no cover save.

We are not told the S or AP value of the hit that caused the wound (unlike in vehicles).

We are told that the unit gets saves, since it doesn't specify armor or invul, then both types of saves would apply.

You cannot take an armor save without knowing the AP of the weapon causing the wound. Since this is not specified, we would have to use the AP of the weapon that inflicted the wound.

If you look further along on page 94, you see that template weapons cause D6 hits. These hits would be at the AP of the template weapon.

Under grenades, you see that grenades cause D6 hits resolved at the strength and Ap of the grenade.

Since you use the S and AP of the grenade, this is the closest we have to resolving hits from other weapons.

But its an assumption which is not nessecery, it states that you take an auto wound (so no S profile needed) with the ignores cover rule (so no cover saves) it does not state an AP so therefore saves and inv saves as normal, with FNP too if you have it.

This thread appears to have caught up with my post (whoops)
Bane makes an interestingly well constructed point.. re a different reading of cover.. you can't take cover from masonry cover hitting you in the face, you still have all your normal stats and the rest is made irrelevant by the mechanics having been done.
(I r lurking intrigued)

Yeah, I have to admit, looking at it like that, Bane's point that you take the auto wound and roll whatever save you have (armor or invul) with no AP of the weapon makes sense.

I therefore reverse my stance and agree with Bane.