Is it just me or are buildings just too overpowered in Warfare?

I raise this question because I have noticed in all games with buildings which provide Hard Cover, it is very hard to shift a unit dug in with it's mates.

Just yesterday, this was further confirmed for me in the game I played here . I held a building at the corner of the table with 4 units, Sniper at the top, Laser Grenadiers for 12" reaction goodness and Battle Grenadiers for all rounded-ness. Add a pinch of Command and now that building was near impossible to take down.

I have been playing other games at my LGS where the terrain is a little more open but in an urban environment, while I sacrifice movement, I gain a lot of tactical advantage. Add Axis range abilities, won't this just make our games very boring?

Snipers don't care about your cover… flamethrowers don't care about your cover, cc weapons don't care about your cover, etc, etc. Plus it is simply 2 hits negated… which is big, don't get me wrong, but blast away at that unit with overwhelming firepower and hand him 6 or 7 hits or more (which is not that hard with a few units/ vehicles with a sustained attack. Ok, you negated 2 of them, what about the other 4 or 5? Even with an axis soldier 3 damage resilient unit, are they going to make all 4 saves? What about when you hit the dug in axis unit with red devils and action jackson who airdropped in behind the building while the BBQ squad blasted 18" at you to the front? They will not get armour saves and so all they can negate are 2 hits and the devils with jackson should do more than that. An allied jump squad can't be reacted to until they get to you with cc weapons and then you can only react with other cc weapons… and get smoked by the hammers+ Rhino in cc, which doesn't allow cover. Airdrop in a fireball heavy walker and make a mockery of those guys in the building… the options are limitless…

What if it is an allied unit dug in? Angela and a sniper squad will laugh at them…..

No… I think buildings are not overpowered… I thought it was actually pretty funny to call an inanimate object that is essentially neutral and could be used by both sides as overpowered… I see what you are saying and I am not being insulting or saying that I am laughing at you so please don't take it that way. Just thought it was funny when I read that buildings are overpowered as I have never heard a non-player controlled non-soldier unit or hero talked about that way.

And don't forget suppression. You can try to stay in the building as long as you can, but even if I'm not wounding you in the building, I'm suppressing you and eventually you'll just run from the building.

Agreed… I think buildings or any kind of hard cover (I use tons of tank trap terrain pieces for hard cover and a couple buidings) are essential to the game or else it just becomes "Boom, Bang" Kapow! Your dead, I'm dead, He's dead, We are all dead! Kabloouie! Blam! Pow! Kabam! " and the game is over in a half hour. Which is fine for dust tactics to be outageously gory, but on the tabletop, tactics are all about which units to put where, who to attack who with, and who uses the terrain and battlefield assets to the best effect. Otherwise, you could just line everyone up in a line across from each other and play a civil war style engagement. And if that is the case, we don't even need models or even a table, just a box and a bunch of dice and see who rolls better.

Obviously, I am taking things to extremes, but taking up proper positions on the battlefield is what a good general does… without terrain, you are just comparing dice rolls and we didn't buy all these models and create these fantastic gaming tables and game rooms just to play yatzee.

Strom is right; the thread title is incogruously hilarious…

Was that particular building a scenario objective? Did it have perfect fields of fire to cover an objective. If not, I'd just put an occasional suppression shot on units in there to keep you honest, while I maneuver around it out of reaction range and win the game taking the objectives. If it was a vital structure to control, then I'd pour enough firepower into it to level it, while maneuvering in coup de grâce units.

Plus dont forget that in real warfare, infantry is notoriously hard to shift when in buildings. Foe example look at the Battle of Stalingrad for a good example of that.. It took months for the Germans to push the Russians from the Tank Factory for example. They were not even completely sucessful.

Plus gamewise infantry needs a place to hunker down and survive, Otherwise why take them, they just die too fast.

My thoughts.

While I wholeheartedly agree with everyone's responses, I have made the mistake of filling the whole board with hard cover terrain and only a tiny bit of soft cover terrain, and it was not a very exciting game. The game, in my opinion, is best with a mix of soft and hard cover, as well as a decent amount of LOS-blocking terrain, and some more open areas where cover just can't be had.