In looking at other things, I had a realization that solves this. Artillery weapons can Damage Buildings by default. The Medusa is categorized as a Heavy Artillery model. Therefore, since it is Artillery (despite not using a barrage template), it has Damages Buildings.

Admittedly, that does not solve whether it should have Destroys Buildings or not.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

... and I just realized a flaw with the above logic. It would mean that stands like the Rapier and Tarantula would have Damages Buildings just because they are listed as Artillery. I doubt that they should.

Thus I'm beginning to have the thought that the designation of 'Artillery' should be deleted and instead specifically note on every weapon that can Damage or Destroy Buildings that it can do so, as otherwise it can be unclear. Note that I'm not talking about changing anything's Pinning Class, just change the description on page 29 of the Core Rules that says:

to:

The description on page 35 of the Core Rules would also have to be amended. It currently makes several assumptions that just are not true.
_ Artillery does not always use the 6cm Barrage Template. Usually, sure, but not always.
_ Not all artillery can fire Indirectly. This is also something that should be specified on a weapon-by-weapon basis, just to eliminate any possible confusion.
_ Not all artillery formations are called "Battery". Most of the Imperial ones are, sure, but so are the Rapier and Tarantula formations and I really doubt that they are supposed to have Damages Buildings. Nor would the Eldar Bright Lance, nor any of several similar weapons.

Hmm, I may have to cross-post this to the Core Rules errata thread or some similar thread. I'll reword it a bit and do that. Probably.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi Magnus,

some units as Rapier or Tarentulas are noted "light artillery" just to put them in "light artillery" pinning class, not because they are artillery. Commonly, artillery that can at least damage buildings hasthe "@" indicated in to-Hit value indicating they use an artillery Template, usually the 6cm template and sometimes the 12 cm template. But it happens that those weapons can not damage buildings and it's stated in unit/weapon description (for example in the Tau Submunition weapons: they have @BP but they do not damage or destroy buildings).

Actually, no. The @ is used to indicate that their BP adds together to determine final To Hit value. This is described clearly in the Core Rules. It has nothing to do with whether or not they Damage Buildings. By the wording of the Core Rules, anything that uses "#BP" instead of a "# Attacks" entry or is found in a formation that is called "... Battery" should be considered to have Damages Buildings, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Just in case I was not clear enough above, I do NOT think that the Rapier, Tarantula, Bright Lance, and many other "Artillery" weapons should have Damages Buildings just because of their pinning class or what their formation is called. I realize and agree that they do not, and should not, have the ability. However, by a strict reading of the rules in the Core Rules, they could be considered to have it. Thus this needs to be fixed.

In my view, it is backwards that everything (all Artillery anyway) should be considered to have Damages Buildings - unless specifically stated otherwise. Rather, it should be as it is with all other weapon Special Abilities, that no weapon has it unless specifically stated as having it. Same with the ability to fire Indirectly. Having to note which weapons cannot do so is also backwards.

This is another instance of us long-timers knowing how it works so we can work past (or just ignore) such irregularities in the wording of the rules. However, a new player might read it and have Rapiers Damage Buildings because "They are in a Battery, so obviously they have it." In this case, the rules would technically be on their side, despite being just flat wrong when considered against all fluff and all W40K.

I'll see if I can scrape together some spare time to see exactly which weapons this affects.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

On a different note, I've noticed that the description for the PDF's Salamander does not include Ignore Cover for it's Flamer weapon. Considering that most, if not all, other Flamer weapons that use the Large Teardrop template have Ignore Cover, I'm currently assuming that this is a typo/omission and that they should have it.

I am still in the process of working up a list for potential Artillery type weapons/models and will post that in it's own thread once ready.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Another typo.

The Tarantula is listed as having a Morale value of "4". As it is Robotic, and thus immune to Morale, this should be a "-".

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Good catch on Salamander weapon, it should be Ignore Cover IIRC, the only Flamer Weapon that use large teardrop template and are not Ignore Cover are Flame Cannons on Doomwings and Firelord. Those weapons are Destroy Buildings (Stated in description but not in Stats Table) but not Ignore Cover (because these are magical Flames ?).



In my "Codex Imperial Guard with errata 2", Tarantulas don't have a morale value but there's some typo on "Tarantulas" variants:

- Scorpion AA Battery: a modified Tarantula with AA ability: shoulld have a morale value of "-" instead of 4
- Zulu AA Battery: a modified Scorpion Battery but description talks about "failed morale check". If it's a ground fixed variant of Scorpion Battery, it should have Inorganic and Robotic abilities and no morale value.

There is an Errata 2 version? Hmm, I may be using an out-of-date file to reference from. I'll have to go look for that.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator