So as the title leads one to believe this is a question about Fortifications and whether or not a Building can be effected by a weapon with the Melta, Lance, ArmourBane Special Rules.

1: Melta. (Pg 39, BRB.) "Ranged weapons with this special rule roll as additional D6 when rolling to penetrate a Vehicles Armor at Half range or less."

2: Lance. (Pb 38, BRB.) "Weapons with the Lance special rule count Vehicle Armour values higher then 12 as 12."

3: Armourbane. (Pg 32, BRB.) "If a Model has this special rule, or is attacking with a Melee weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 for Armour penetration in close combat. Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 for Armour penetration. In either case, this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models."

I have looked in the FAQ regarding this issue however, there seems to be nothing in the FAQ regarding whether or not you get the AV reduced for Lance, or the Double dice for Melta.

Based on what I have seen Fortifications are not Vehicles but BattleField Terrain. This is based on the fact that Vehicles have their own section in the BRB (Pg 70.) While Fortifications/BattleField Terrain have their own section. (Pg 88-107, 114-117.)

So if you have a AV 14 Building/Fortification does the Lance or Melta, get its effect or is it ignored.

Is Armour Value different when it is a vehicle or a building? no.

AV is AV, this is the question of whether or not Melta/lance can effect a building, as a building is not in a Vehicle.

All the above posted rules state in that they effect the Armour of a Vehicle. They do not state that they work when penning Armour Value alone, but have the qualifier stating that they effect Vehicle Amour.

I guess this is another GW typo... Or is it Rules as Written and intended?

 BLADERIKER wrote:
AV is AV, this is the question of whether or not Melta/lance can effect a building, as a building is not in a Vehicle.

Buildings follow all the rules for vehicles with a few exceptions.

 Happyjew wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
AV is AV, this is the question of whether or not Melta/lance can effect a building, as a building is not in a Vehicle.

Buildings follow all the rules for vehicles with a few exceptions.

I need to see some citation on this as I has yet to find this.

Each fortification has a terrain type assigned to it, which can range from 'battlefield debris' right through to 'buildings.' This terrain type informs you which rules to use in relation to that fortification, as per the rules for fortification on page 114. So you would reference the type of terrain the fortification is for any rules related to that type of terrain. Now from the context of your post I can see you are most interested in the building terrain type, as it is the only type generate Armour penetration rolls for.

Building rules can be found on page 92 and contain something very interesting you need to take a look at. Within these rules we are informed buildings follow aspects of the transport vehicle rules and indeed, many things about buildings only function because you take these rules into account. They then go on to inform you how to go about calculating capacities, armour values, access points and other details that only come into play for transport vehicles. This has set the ground that buildings are treated as identical as transport vehicles.

The next page contains a section called 'attacking buildings' which further cements this concept. The first bold section states that units fire at occupied buildings as if they where vehicles, so they would therefore follow all the rules related to firing on vehicles. It goes on to state you calculate things like armour penetration 'normally,' which would also include any factors that adjust how armour penetration is calculated. The section of the book informing us how to go about calculating these numbers are found in the vehicle section, because these terms and methods are directly related to firing on vehicles.

Therefore, such special rules would effect a building if they contain clauses which effect vehicles.

BRB, page 92, left column, second paragraph.

Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

How does

Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle.

Not answer your questions? If you're shooting it just as if it was a vehicle but not applying Melta or Lance... You're not shooting as if its a vehicle.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

Right, because I'm sure they'll answer that and add it right into their FAQ's.

Getting a response back from them in an email is laughable at best as well.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Page 92/93 still does not answer my question so it looks like I'll have to send in a FAQ question and see what happens.

Right, because I'm sure they'll answer that and add it right into their FAQ's.

Getting a response back from them in an email is laughable at best as well.

I'm still waiting on an answer to appear in an FAQ myself. Been a few months now. It originally occurred due to a guy at my club claiming that because all the rules say 'vehicle' they don't work on buildings. Fortunately this situation came up at the last Throne of Skulls event I was at. The ruling given to me at an official GW event, run by GW staff at GW HQ. (Sorry, just hammering home the GW-ness of the event) is that if it affects a vehicle, it affects a building. Armourbane, melta, lance, even haywire. The lot.

Given page 93 says that as well, it's not a surprise.

40k rulebook p93 wrote:When shooting at a building, roll to hit and for armour penetration normally

By that, I'd say that any special rules for armour penetration on a vehicle would work on a building.

 marv335 wrote:

40k rulebook p93 wrote:When shooting at a building, roll to hit and for armour penetration normally

By that, I'd say that any special rules for armour penetration on a vehicle would work on a building.

As would I, which was my original argument against my gaming companion. However he, as with many others I know, pointed out that melta, lance, etc. all say 'A vehicle' hit by these weapons...

His argument was that building =/= vehicle, thus they don't apply. Yes, penetrate as normal, but against a building, not a vehicle. He seemed less than amused after my return from ToS...

But then the building rules are still fairly grey and poorly written. What happens if you roll a 6 on the damage chart with an AP1 weapon? The 7 result on the table is just that, a 7. Not a 7+. RAW, god knows what happens. RAI, it's a 7...

BunnyCommando wrote:

But then the building rules are still fairly grey and poorly written. What happens if you roll a 6 on the damage chart with an AP1 weapon? The 7 result on the table is just that, a 7. Not a 7+. RAW, god knows what happens. RAI, it's a 7...

A six on a vehicle with an ap1 weapon is also just a 6. Buildings just have the 7 if they are shot with ap1 or ap2 weapons. I dont understand the confusion

Heh, so it does. Must have missed that part. Oh well, disregard that third paragraph of my previous comment.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

For Armourbane do you ignore the last sentence and roll 2D6 against the Building, Fortification? Because at the time of the assault the Building was counted as a Vehicle? Or do you check to see if the model being effect by Armourbane is a Vehicle and then roll Armour Pen?

Part of the reason I ask this is because an Infernus Pistol can destroy a building and a Melta Bomb cannot? (Given ones interpretation of the Armourbane Rule) This seems kind of backwards to me, where a pistol can destroy a Fortified Position and the Bomb (Designed to take out heavy Armour) cannot. This is also given that fact that most buildings you can attack are AV 14, are not effected by glances.

I felt that this issue needed better clarification from GW, as when 6th ed was released there were only two Fortifications that might have this issue and to even be able to target them at all, they had to have a unit inside them. With the Christmas release of the Wall of Martyrs bunker GW added another Building which you could not target unless occupied. Now with the Vengeance Redoubt/Batteries being usable in normal 40K play, there are two building that can be attacked without being occupied. So while this issue almost never came up before it will now, as there is almost a full page in the FAQ regarding battlements and things that effect them, as the guide line for how critical this could be.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

Well the terrain(Building) is not a model so that restriction does not apply.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

Well the terrain(Building) is not a model so that restriction does not apply.

Can you give an example of a non-vehicle model that has an armor value? What are they trying to restrict here?

The only way you can read that is they were trying to exclude buildings. But they did a horrible job of it.

They did do a horrible job trying to exclude buildings as buildings are not Models as defined by the 40k rules.

They are model as in the real world physical representation of a building, but they are not Models as the 40k Ruleset defines them.

So maybe they meant model, as in real world physical representation of a building, instead of Model, thing which is defined in the 40k Rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Real life got in the way for a bit there so where was I.

While I cannot at this time find reason to ignore the stated rules on pg's 92/93. There is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

Given that when shooting at, or charging a building you treat it just as a Vehicle (Pg, 93) How are attacks made with the Armourbane special rule resolved against a building? As the rules for Armourbane state that, Armourbane penetrations rolls cannot effect a non-Vehicle model. So how is this resolved?

Well the terrain(Building) is not a model so that restriction does not apply.

Can you give an example of a non-vehicle model that has an armor value? What are they trying to restrict here?

The only way you can read that is they were trying to exclude buildings. But they did a horrible job of it.

Part of the reason why I brought this up. The only other thing in all of 40K with AV other than Vehicles are Buildings/Fortifications. So why make the distinction by saying non-Vehicle model if you will never roll Armour Pen against a Model with a Toughness Value. This only leaves Buildings/Fortifications. Also if a Building/Fortification is not considered a "Model" by the BRB then what is it considered? If it is nothing more than Terrain piece then why not say so? If it is in fact a Fortified Building being used in a Strategic manner then why not say that?

Oh well Just another example of GW not thinking it out. Pitty

so are you going to tell your opponent that he can't destroy any buildings because the rules say so? pity...

That is one thing the rules are clear on, buildings can never be completely destroyed. Page 92, second paragraph on the left, second bold section. Their lack of hull points prevent them from being removed as 'casualties' in and of itself, even without a rule out right stating that they can never be removed from play. Even the total collapse and detonation results on the building damage table do not tell you to remove the building from play, simply that the guns are rendered useless and that models can no longer occupy said building.

The closest to 'destroyed' you can come is turning the building into an impassable building.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
so are you going to tell your opponent that he can't destroy any buildings because the rules say so? pity...

I am not sure what you are getting at by making the above statement?

As for Deathreapers statement Regarding Buildings not being models, I believe I have found the answer. I have looked at the Vehicle section (Pg 70-87), Battlefield Terrain section (PG 90-107), Model & Unit section (Pg 2-3), and the Force Organization Section (PG 108-110).

It has already been show that you fire at and charge a Building just like a Vehicle. Under the Vehicle Section Armour Value is explained and it is also stated that most Vehicles do not have bases and therefor you measure shooting and charges to the base, while when shooting the Vehicle you measure from the TLOS of the Weapon and the Barrel of the Weapon. There is also a Vehicle Damage Chart and the explanation of High AP weapons.

Under Battlefield Terrain, (Buildings) It is stated that you shoot at and charge a building in the same manner as you would a Vehicle, and that Buildings have a base size which will determine the AV of the building and the number of troops that can occupy it at any given time. In this section they explain how Glancing, and Penetrating hits work against a building, as well as a Building Damage Chart (Which is similar too, but not the same as the Vehicle Damage Chart). They also go on to explain that you can never destroy a build, and that should you score a six or better on the Building Damage Chart the building simply becomes Impassable Terrain, loses all of its emplaced weapons and can no longer be Garrisoned.

Under Models and Units at the very beginning of this section it states. "The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 referred to as models in the rules that follow - To reflect all their differences, each model has its own Characteristics profile." With this stated I would argue that if the Physical real world model has a Stat line that represents it in the rules then it is a model by the above mentioned quote. Where as Ruins and some Battlefield Terrain have no stat line at all (Like the Aegis Defense Line for one.) Others like Buildings and Weapons Emplacements do, and therefor are models. (Mind you this may be a narrow interpretation of the rules.)

Under Force Organization, the heading for Fortifications states that a Fortification is purpose built by the army that controls it at game start or has been commandeered by that army for its purposes. It also states that you will not find Fortifications in the individual Codexs, but in the BRB and future White Dwarf's and their Website.

I would argue that a Fortification which has a Stat line is a Model, as for it being a Non-Vehicle Model Gw needs to better define what a Non-Vehicle Model is.

As for the statement made By SoloFalcon, until such a time as GW better defines what a Non-Vehicle Model is, I will continue to abide by the Rules as Written for that. As for being able to Damage a Fortification, I do not recall once saying that you could not damage them. I simply stated that I did not see why Melta/lance/Armourbane effected them. A Fortification can still be destroyed by High STR and AP Hits. So if a Monstrous Creature Slam attacks a Bastion, then by all means that Bastion may be destroyed, that is if there is anyone Garrisoning it and not on the battlements.

And then we read page 3 "each model will have a unit type" and realize that a piece of terrain does not have a unit type and therefore is not a model as defined by the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And then we read page 3 "each model will have a unit type" and realize that a piece of terrain does not have a unit type and therefore is not a model as defined by the BRB.

However, Also stated on Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

Yet again we have an issue. How can a Fortification even be part of an army if it does not have a unit type?

These are all Fortifications and can be added to any Force Org under the Fortification Unit Slot (For the lack of a better term.) If you can only have Units (Made up of Models) in your army for your list to be legal, then either the Purchasable Fortifications have a unit type of their Terrain Type so that a list that includes can be legal, or they are an exception to the rules.

Fortifications (Pg 109, BRB, Lower Right.) "Unlike Units, Fortifications are not found in Codexes. instead you'll find a selection presented in this book (See Page 114), Whilst others will be presented in White Dwarf and through our website: www.games-workshop.com".

Aegis Defence Line, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line.)

Skyshield Landing Pad, Terrain Type: (Unique)

Imperial Bastion, Terrain Type: Medium Building (Armour Value 14)

Fortress of Redemption, Terrain type: Medium and Small Buildings (Armour Value 14.)

What I have seen above leads me to believe that when purchased as a Fortification, the Unit Type and Terrain Type hold the same meaning, but this only if they are part of an legal Force Org. If for some reason a Building such as a Bastion is part of the table Terrain then I would hope that the players would discuss what it is and how it functions as it was not purchased by any player as part of a Force Org.

Also in regards to buildings as they can never be Destroyed they can never count as a Kill/Victory Point. However, Based on the fact that a Gun Emplacement, has a Terrain type of "Battle Field Debris (Gun Emplacement)." and it has been stated in the FAQ that it can be destroyed, I would argue that you can get First Blood or a Kill point from it, based on this new information, providing that it was purchased as part of a players Force Org and not part of the Table Terrain.

A secondary question to reinforce my first question. What is the unit type stated under the Unit Types Heading (Pg 44-49 BRB), for anything that has an Armour Value?

 BLADERIKER wrote:
However, Also stated on Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

Yet again we have an issue. How can a Fortification even be part of an army if it does not have a unit type?

Because the Force Org chart tells us we can include terrain in the form of a fortification as a part of our forces.

These are all Fortifications and can be added to any Force Org under the Fortification Unit Slot (For the lack of a better term.) If you can only have Units (Made up of Models) in your army for your list to be legal, then either the Purchasable Fortifications have a unit type of their Terrain Type so that a list that includes can be legal, or they are an exception to the rules.

It is not a unit slot. It is a slot on the force Org chart. Nothing tells us that it is a unit slot.

Fortifications (Pg 109, BRB, Lower Right.) "Unlike Units, Fortifications are not found in Codexes. instead you'll find a selection presented in this book (See Page 114), Whilst others will be presented in White Dwarf and through our website: www.games-workshop.com".

Aegis Defence Line, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line.)

Skyshield Landing Pad, Terrain Type: (Unique)

Imperial Bastion, Terrain Type: Medium Building (Armour Value 14)

Fortress of Redemption, Terrain type: Medium and Small Buildings (Armour Value 14.)

What I have seen above leads me to believe that when purchased as a Fortification, the Unit Type and Terrain Type hold the same meaning, but this only if they are part of an legal Force Org. If for some reason a Building such as a Bastion is part of the table Terrain then I would hope that the players would discuss what it is and how it functions as it was not purchased by any player as part of a Force Org.

If terrain was a unit they would have said 'Unlike other units' but they actually said "Unlike units..." This should convince you that terrain is not a unit as "Unlike units..."

All of the units in the codexes have Unit type, Fortifications do not have a unit type, they have a terrain type as they are terrain and not a unit.

Also in regards to buildings as they can never be Destroyed they can never count as a Kill/Victory Point. However, Based on the fact that a Gun Emplacement, has a Terrain type of "Battle Field Debris (Gun Emplacement)." and it has been stated in the FAQ that it can be destroyed, I would argue that you can get First Blood or a Kill point from it, based on this new information, providing that it was purchased as part of a players Force Org and not part of the Table Terrain.

You only get VP's for enemy units. Terrain is never a unit.

A secondary question to reinforce my first question. What is the unit type stated under the Unit Types Heading (Pg 44-49 BRB), for anything that has an Armour Value?

Vehicles have their own section: "we will now cover a series of unit types, each with their own abilities and special rules. Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)." Page 44

Vehicle units are not covered as they are "distinct enough to require their own section"

Also Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (emphasis mine)

Vehicles are units. It spells it out right there that they are in fact "considered to be a unit in its own right." (3)

Isn't it odd though when we go to pg 70, vehicles are never once called a unit? It's not spelled out, it's inferred. It is CONSIDERED to be a unit, because it's not an actual unit so it's considered to be one. sure a tank is called a considered unit on pg 3, but vehicles are not listed. The stuff on pg 44 has unit types. vehicles have types of vehicles.

They spend 6 pages taking about vehicles in general and the word unit never comes up. A vehicle squadron can be inferred to be a unit, But that's probably just GW being inconsistant with their own terms again. What about non squadron, non tank vehicles? I know quite a few guard players who'd be happy to have their transports accepted as "not a unit" as all they seem good for is giving up first blood.

I think pg 7 basic vs advanced needs to be considered as well. All rules apply to models.

So that "terrain" is actually an enemy. As you would say it's spelled out on pg 121 (deploy forces) I'd say it's inferred.

pg7 + pg 121 = buildings are enemy models.

A building that's an enemy model and is treated like a transport during at least 1/2 the game. (the whole game really)

While it might not be a unit in the strictest (never defined in the brb) sense, it counts as one during the game, otherwise the shooting & assault rules make no sense what so ever.

We have unit types for pg 44, and that's it. But people are willing to apply vehicle types to equate unit types, is it really any stretch after that to go terrain types is also unit types?

Actually the Vehicle rules do call vehicles units under the Ballistic Skill entry: "Vehicles have a Ballistic Skill value just like other unit types" (70)

Page 71 Vehicle Movement section also calls them units "Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models."

As well as the Difficult and dangerous terrain section on P. 71 "Vehicles attempting to move through broken terrain are not slowed like other units,"

Shooting with vehicles section P.71 "When a vehicle fires, it uses its own Ballistic Skill characteristic and shoots like any other unit."

Vehicles and Ordnance weapons P.71 "Unlike other units..."

Just like other unit types = vehicles are units and they have a BS "just like other unit types"

Considered to be a unit = they are a unit.

Page 44 specifically mentions that vehicles have their own section, as the reasoning for them not being listed in the unit types section.

This tells us that vehicles should be listed here, but since they have so many rules they made their own section for that unit type...

Even the codexes list a unit type for vehicles. Take the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM It has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

Ergo Vehicles are certainly units.

A vehicle squadron is most certainly a unit.

"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons. Squadrons are treated lil<e normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." (77) (Emphasis mine)

Squadrons can become two different units if one member of the unit is immobilized P. 77: "If a member of a squadron is Immobilised, the rest of the squadron are permitted to 'abandon' it. To do so, the rest of the squadron must move out of unit coherency with it; treat the Immobilised model(s) as a separate unit from then on."

sirlynchmob wrote:
We have unit types for pg 44, and that's it. But people are willing to apply vehicle types to equate unit types, is it really any stretch after that to go terrain types is also unit types?

It is a stretch because vehicles are units and have a unit type, buildings do not and are not. You shoot and assault buildings almost the same as units, though they have additional restrictions like needing to be occupied to shoot at them...

 DeathReaper wrote:


Considered to be a unit = they are a unit.

sirlynchmob wrote:
We have unit types for pg 44, and that's it. But people are willing to apply vehicle types to equate unit types, is it really any stretch after that to go terrain types is also unit types?

It is a stretch because vehicles are units and have a unit type, buildings do not and are not. You shoot and assault buildings almost the same as units, though they have additional restrictions like needing to be occupied to shoot at them...

so you only disagree with giving the the official unit stamp?

just as if it was a transport = it is a transport?

But do you agree that they are enemy models? As you skipped over that part.

Terrain is not a model or a unit (As 40k defines them) so it can never have an enemy.

Vehicles are units as I have proven in my last post. (Official units even).

Given that buildings often have landraider armor, not allowing these things is "stupid" and "unfair", which by themselves wouldn't count for anything, but combined with the vague rules saying that buildings are shot at like vehicles, I call it a tie breaker.

You have a vague rule pointing generally in one direction and the other direction is frustrating and unfair, hmm, not a hard call.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Terrain is not a model or a unit (As 40k defines them) so it can never have an enemy.

Vehicles are units as I have proven in my last post. (Official units even).

Proved? no. Inferred? sure.
Pg 44 is labeled UNIT TYPES, all caps and bold.
Vehicles have vehicle types. not unit types. so while a tank may be considered a unit, no other single vehicles have permission to do so.

And that terrain is clearly and official labeled friendly to your units.
And the other guys terrain is clearly and officially labeled enemy to your units.
indisputable RAW.

Buildings are models, in the dictionary sense and on pg 7 sense:
Rules apply to models
Buildings have rules,
therefore buildings are models.

And in the sense if they are not models, then no rules apply to buildings, nor can you ever allocate any wounds to them.
The only way the rules work at all if for it to be a model at the minimum. Because any time it matters they are at a minimum considered to be a transport model.
Transports are models right?

I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

So other than the codices (and possibly Apocalypse) where is there a "datasheet" for vehicles? Every vehicle in a codex (argument could be made for BT, but they are old as sin) lists vehicles as having a Unit Type of "Vehicle".

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

And the BRB tells you the rest.

"If your codex doesn't contain unit type information (as will be the case with some of the older volumes), then simply consult Appendix II of this book - you will find a complete at-a-glance bestiary that (amongst other things) lists each model's unit type." (44)

The Shooting with vehicles section P.71 "When a vehicle fires, it uses its own Ballistic Skill characteristic and shoots like any other unit." tells us that, like any other unit, Vehicles have a BS. this may infer that vehicles are nits but the next quote comes out and says it:

"A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (emphasis mine)

Vehicles are units as this quote proves.

Considered to be = the rules consider them units, we should as well.

Vehicles are units as I have proven so you might want to retract your statement:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Proved? no.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

So other than the codices (and possibly Apocalypse) where is there a "datasheet" for vehicles? Every vehicle in a codex (argument could be made for BT, but they are old as sin) lists vehicles as having a Unit Type of "Vehicle".

that's really not the point. Just using those 2 sentences on pg 3 to say a building is not a model, would also say any non tank vehicle is not a model.

And if a transport is a model using that as precedence, Then a building that is treated like a transport would also be treated like a model. QED.
As it's treated like a transport model for the whole game, It doesn't matter if we just straight up call it a model because it's acting like one anyways.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

And the BRB tells you the rest.

"If your codex doesn't contain unit type information (as will be the case with some of the older volumes), then simply consult Appendix II of this book - you will find a complete at-a-glance bestiary that (amongst other things) lists each model's unit type." (44)

Vehicles are units as I have proven so you might want to retract your statement:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Proved? no.

When we look at the appendix for profiles again we see:

Unit types
Vehicle types

Two separate entries. ie different, not the same.

so I still say: Proved? no. Inferred? Sure.

You clearly are not reading what I post.

page 3 "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

a single model such as a tank is also considered to be a unit

How can you refute that this says that a tank is a unit?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just using those 2 sentences on pg 3 to say a building is not a model, would also say any non tank vehicle is not a model.

This is not true either...

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics" (3)

Do non tank vehicles have a profile? (Hint Page 3 covers this as well)

"vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Also anything, other than terrain is a unit because "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'."

Models must be organised into 'units' This would include vehicles as vehicles are models.

Now please retract your false statement, as I have proven that vehicles are units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You clearly are not reading what I post.

page 3 "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

a single model such as a tank is also considered to be a unit

How can you refute that this says that a tank is a unit?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just using those 2 sentences on pg 3 to say a building is not a model, would also say any non tank vehicle is not a model.

This is not true either...

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics" (3)

Do non tank vehicles have a profile? (Hint Page 3 covers this as well)

"vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Also anything, other than terrain is a unit because "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'."

Models must be organised into 'units' This would include vehicles as vehicles are models.

Now please retract your false statement, as I have proven that vehicles are units.

Is it a model, is the main issue here.
Vehicles do not have a unit type to meet your requirement on pg 3 to be a model.
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.
Models represent a huge variety of troops
Each model will have a unit type, and as shown vehicle type is different from unit type.
Vehicles have many different rules and their own characteristics. ie admitting they don't have unit types to be considered models.
It also says some models aren't supplied with a base at all. in these cases you should feel free to mount the model on a base. Do vehicles or buildings come with bases? Did you mount yours onto one?
Models must be organized into units, just because it's a vehicle and considered a unit, does not make it a model.

And if you say yes vehicles are models, then something that counts as a vehicle also counts as a model. Otherwise no rules at all can be used with buildings, especially the part about allocating wounds to models.

You have no RAW that flat out say "vehicles are models" when everything about models says it applies to troops only. And if we can accept that vehicles are also models so all the rules work, then we can also accept the same for buildings that count as vehicles.

How many times do you see a Building as defined by GW that is not part of a Persons army in a Game, instead of Ruins, Forest, Craters, Ect... As defined by GW.

I can only speak for myself in this, but in the majority of my games there are no Buildings unless I or my opponent bring one as our Fortification choice. The vast majority of Terrain is Ruins, Forests, Trenches, Craters.... Not one of those pieces of Terrain can ever be effected by any form of Shooting, Moving, or Assault, which personally I think is silly as a Str D Apoc template over a forest should remove it altogether...

Buildings are by there defined nature, natural having no owner at the start of the game, and no weapons to speak of.

A Building Purchased as a Fortification is Hostel toward the opposing player, as Fortifications are controlled and owned by one player or the other at the start of the game.

This is Break Down of what I have seen so far in this argument.

A Model must have a unit Type, Be a Citadel Model, and have a Statline for the rules in the BRB to apply to it.

If an object does not have these Qualifying features then the rules in the BRB to not apply to it.

An object that is not a model may have special rules for how to interact with it during game play as defined in the BRB.

A Building may not be a Citadel model to be used in game play.

A Fortification must be a Citadel Model to be used in game play.*

All Building have a Statline as defined in the BRB.

Fortifications are use Rules from the Battlefield Terrain List.

So while a Building may be represented by a Cardboard Box, A legal Fortification choice Must be represented by a Citadel Model.*

Interestingly enough as I have state before. "The Citadel Miniatures used to play Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as "Models" in the rules that follow." (Pg 2 BRB.)

*: If the players agree that a scratch built Fortification is fine then there is no issue.
**. ADL, SLP, WMT, WMWE.

This seems to have strayed from the original point, but Armorbane works fine on buildings. The rules for that have been cited already.

In this thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.

But in the "ADL - First Blood & Auto Loss Prevention ?" thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Buildings do not meet the requirements to be considered a model, let alone a unit,...

So which is it?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is it a model, is the main issue here.
Vehicles do not have a unit type to meet your requirement on pg 3 to be a model.
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.
Models represent a huge variety of troops
Each model will have a unit type, and as shown vehicle type is different from unit type.
Vehicles have many different rules and their own characteristics. ie admitting they don't have unit types to be considered models.
It also says some models aren't supplied with a base at all. in these cases you should feel free to mount the model on a base. Do vehicles or buildings come with bases? Did you mount yours onto one?
Models must be organized into units, just because it's a vehicle and considered a unit, does not make it a model.

And if you say yes vehicles are models, then something that counts as a vehicle also counts as a model. Otherwise no rules at all can be used with buildings, especially the part about allocating wounds to models.

You have no RAW that flat out say "vehicles are models" when everything about models says it applies to troops only. And if we can accept that vehicles are also models so all the rules work, then we can also accept the same for buildings that count as vehicles.

Vehicles are a unit, the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM It has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

There is no conflict so it is not a matter of Codex > BRB...

Buildings are not defined as models in the 40k Ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In this thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.

But in the "ADL - First Blood & Auto Loss Prevention ?" thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Buildings do not meet the requirements to be considered a model, let alone a unit,...
So which is it?

The first one, buildings are models. the part you clipped was from a different user who made a good point on why buildings are not awarding victory points. Next time I quote him I'll make sure to edit out that part, but do note I gave him credit at the bottom of the second post.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is it a model, is the main issue here.
Vehicles do not have a unit type to meet your requirement on pg 3 to be a model.
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.
Models represent a huge variety of troops
Each model will have a unit type, and as shown vehicle type is different from unit type.
Vehicles have many different rules and their own characteristics. ie admitting they don't have unit types to be considered models.
It also says some models aren't supplied with a base at all. in these cases you should feel free to mount the model on a base. Do vehicles or buildings come with bases? Did you mount yours onto one?
Models must be organized into units, just because it's a vehicle and considered a unit, does not make it a model.

And if you say yes vehicles are models, then something that counts as a vehicle also counts as a model. Otherwise no rules at all can be used with buildings, especially the part about allocating wounds to models.

You have no RAW that flat out say "vehicles are models" when everything about models says it applies to troops only. And if we can accept that vehicles are also models so all the rules work, then we can also accept the same for buildings that count as vehicles.

Vehicles are a unit, the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM It has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

There is no conflict so it is not a matter of Codex > BRB...

Buildings are not defined as models in the 40k Ruleset.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Vehicles are units, not models
buildings are defined as models in the 40k ruleset and are specifically called models.
And if you can consider a vehicle to be a model even though it has no "unit type", even as a unit. Then a building is surely a model as the data sheet tells you it is a model and to play it as modeled. And on top of that it counts as a transport throughout the game.

I still don't see what the huge problem is with acknowledging buildings are models as vehicles are models, so both work with the rules. Not calling buildings models seems to create more issues than any you think it solves.

If vehicles are units they have to be models.

Plus "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics" (3)

"To reflect the many differences between creatures of flesh and blood and constructs of adamantium and warpforged metal, vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Vehicles have a profile that lists the value of its characteristics, and they have a unit type.

Vehicles are indisputable models and units.

Buildings do not have a unit type... Buildings are not models in what 40k defines as model.

Buildings are called models in the text because they are referring to the physical representation of the building, not the defined model rules in the 40k Ruleset as they do not fit the description of what 40k defines as a model.

"At the back of this book, and in the codexes for each army, you will find the profiles for warriors and heroes drawn from many different races" (3) Note in the back of the book (the reference pages) buildings are not listed. as they have no profile. They have a terrain datasheet, but that is something different.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Buildings are models, in the dictionary sense and on pg 7 sense:
Rules apply to models
Buildings have rules,
therefore buildings are models

Grass is eaten by cows.
My cat eats grass.
Therefore...



Even better, there are a number of rules in the rulebook that apply to the players (most notably The Most Important Rule).
So rules apply to models.
Players have rules...

How do I determine my unit type?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Vehicles are units, not models
buildings are defined as models in the 40k ruleset and are specifically called models.
And if you can consider a vehicle to be a model even though it has no "unit type", even as a unit. Then a building is surely a model as the data sheet tells you it is a model and to play it as modeled. And on top of that it counts as a transport throughout the game.

I still don't see what the huge problem is with acknowledging buildings are models as vehicles are models, so both work with the rules. Not calling buildings models seems to create more issues than any you think it solves.

If vehicles are units they have to be models.

Plus "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics" (3)

"To reflect the many differences between creatures of flesh and blood and constructs of adamantium and warpforged metal, vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Vehicles have a profile that lists the value of its characteristics, and they have a unit type.

Vehicles are indisputable models and units.

Buildings do not have a unit type... Buildings are not models in what 40k defines as model.

Buildings are called models in the text because they are referring to the physical representation of the building, not the defined model rules in the 40k Ruleset as they do not fit the description of what 40k defines as a model.

"At the back of this book, and in the codexes for each army, you will find the profiles for warriors and heroes drawn from many different races" (3) Note in the back of the book (the reference pages) buildings are not listed. as they have no profile. They have a terrain datasheet, but that is something different.

I disagree, vehicles do not have unit types. Unit types are different from vehicle types. I'll grant you Units, but they are not models.

As I've already addressed these, how about we agree to disagree here unless we can think up some new arguments?

But I would really like to know what issues it creates if we just say RAW buildings are models? it really does seem to clear up lots of these issues on the front page I'm seeing.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I disagree, vehicles do not have unit types. Unit types are different from vehicle types. I'll grant you Units, but they are not models.

Incorrect. Vehicles have a unit type the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

Predator's unit type is Vehicle. Vehicle is a unit type...

sirlynchmob wrote:
As I've already addressed these, how about we agree to disagree here unless we can think up some new arguments?

But I would really like to know what issues it creates if we just say RAW buildings are models? it really does seem to clear up lots of these issues on the front page I'm seeing.

You have addressed it incorrectly and with a basic misunderstanding of the rules. Seeing as you have a basic misunderstanding of what the 40K rulebook defines as a model it would be safest to leave this topic alone.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I disagree, vehicles do not have unit types. Unit types are different from vehicle types. I'll grant you Units, but they are not models.

Incorrect. Vehicles have a unit type the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

Predator's unit type is Vehicle. Vehicle is a unit type...

sirlynchmob wrote:
As I've already addressed these, how about we agree to disagree here unless we can think up some new arguments?

But I would really like to know what issues it creates if we just say RAW buildings are models? it really does seem to clear up lots of these issues on the front page I'm seeing.

You have addressed it incorrectly and with a basic misunderstanding of the rules. Seeing as you have a basic misunderstanding of what the 40K rulebook defines as a model it would be safest to leave this topic alone.

Says the guy who doesn't know what a unit type is.
and wrongly associates type of vehicle to mean unit type.
Even unit composition is not unit type.
unit types are on pg 44.
Vehicles do not have unit types. to say otherwise is just wrong.

I get what a model is, it's all over pg 3, models are troops with unit types. to apply that to vehicles freely without any rules support is showing "you have a basic misunderstanding of what the 40K rulebook defines as a model it would be safest to leave this topic alone."

Clearly RAW can only mean like pg 7 says. Models have rules, ergo tanks & buildings are models, all of your arguments to not accept buildings as models prevent tanks from being models as well. And it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to say otherwise.

Unit types are on P. 44 which also specifically mentions that vehicles have their own section. (This is the reasoning for not including vehicles on the Unit types pages, because unit type "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)."

If you are going to make wild accusations about me not knowing what a unit type is, when I have clearly demonstrated knowledge on the subject,

Vehicle is a unit type. to say otherwise is just wrong.

I have shown rules support to apply unit types to vehicles, you have just ignored my rules quotes.

Buildings are not models, vehicles are.

If you do not understand that is okay, just re-read the thread and hopefully it will help you understand the rules.

It doesn't bother you that you have to keep adding in the word 'unit' to vehicles when you don't see them in the rules?

I believe the quote you were looking for is "vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicle section (see pg 70)"

Why did you add in unit?

pg 70 says nothing about vehicles having a unit type, and the appendix in the back again separates unit types from vehicle types.

I can see that you've house ruled vehicle type to equal unit types, but that's not RAW.

I do understand the rules, the rules apply to models (pg 7) basic rules apply to all models in the game, advanced rules apply to specific types of models. So it's either everything is a model, or just troops are models.

The citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble space marines and brutal orks to warp-spawned demons.

hey look they put models in quotes.

Each model will have a unit type. Now look on pg 44 and tell me what unit type a vehicle has. If that's what is limiting buildings from being models, then it surely limits vehicles as well.

Is a tank a miniature? is a tank a troop? what unit type does a vehicle have? See I quoted the whole rule without having to change them. You keep point to vehicle types and going see they're unit types. But they are not in any way RAW stated or implied to be the same.

I have whole and unmodified rules, you must be arguing HYWPI.

Miniature: a. A copy or model that represents or reproduces something in a greatly reduced size.

Model: 1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

The bastion is a citadel miniature model,
This box set contains one plastic Citadel Wood. hey look, the woods are citadel miniatures and a models as well.

The only way the rules work as a whole is to say there are troop models, vehicle models, and terrain models. RAW.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It doesn't bother you that you have to keep adding in the word 'unit' to vehicles when you don't see them in the rules?

It is there, maybe you missed it in my previous posts.

Hint right here: "Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (emphasis mine) " This explicitly states that a single model such as a tank is also considered to be a unit...

P.S.
By the real world definition of model yes everything you put on the table is a model.

By the rules in 40K the bastion does not have a unit type so it is not a model.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It doesn't bother you that you have to keep adding in the word 'unit' to vehicles when you don't see them in the rules?

It is there, maybe you missed it in my previous posts.

P.S.
By the real world definition of model yes everything you put on the table is a model.

By the rules in 40K the bastion does not have a unit type so it is not a model.

By the rules in 40K a vehicle does not have a unit type so it is not a model. QED, at least be consistent.

Just because a vehicle can be in a unit, does not mean it has a unit type as listed on pg 44.

wow this is awesome, this makes bastions that much powerful! thanks DeathReaper!

 ashikenshin wrote:
wow this is awesome, this makes bastions that much powerful! thanks DeathReaper!

... how? Truly, I'm trying to understand how this changes their power level.

I have the same question....

Sure, the lack of it being a model is an interesting quirk of the rules, but it doesn't seem to be relevant at all when it comes to playing them. Buildings have a whole bunch of additional rules that prevent you from being able to really 'exploit' this quirk. This is making it very difficult for me to see any real benefit for the bastion, though it does create some situations with the vengeance battery. I still fail to how this makes the Bastion more powerful then it already is.

because it's no longer weak against melta and lance since it's not a vehicle?

It acts like a vehicle when you shoot at it, so it is still susceptible to Lance and Melta.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just because a vehicle can be in a unit, does not mean it has a unit type as listed on pg 44.

It does not need a unit type listed on Page 44, because in the 40k rules they state that "we will now cover a series of unit types, each with their own abilities and special rules. Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)."

This tells you that they would cover the vehicle type here, but "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)."

The specifically point out that vehicles are not included here because they are covered later in their own section.

Doesn't work that way, the rules for attacking building contain a line stating you treat them as if they where vehicles for this purpose. This creates a requirement forcing you to add the modifiers designed to effect vehicles. Should you not add the additional modifiers then you have broken this line in the rules as you are not treating buildings as if they where vehicles.

nevermind i missunderstood. carry on nothing to see here

 ashikenshin wrote:

I saw that

You should take the stance that if a building is not a model, you can not assign any wounds to it.

Sure you can attack like it's a vehicle, but then as you can't see any "models" the wound pool empties.

But I'd agree melta and lance work against buildings, armourbane does not though.

One never did assign 'wounds' to the building itself, it does not have Hull Points or wounds to be applied against, and can not be destroyed even if it did thanks to the line stating it can never be destroyed. Instead it uses a more complicated, and if you ask me stupid, system to resolve the damage against the unit inside the building. This system can also be found on page 93, under the attack building section, which is required to grant permission to attack in the first place as it falls far outside of the standard rules for attacking, vehicles or otherwise. Given that we have rules specifically designed for this occasion, we are required to use all those rules; model or not.

JinxDragon wrote:
One never did assign 'wounds' to the building itself, it does not have Hull Points or wounds to be applied against, and can not be destroyed even if it did thanks to the line stating it can never be destroyed. Instead it uses a more complicated, and if you ask me stupid, system to resolve the damage against the unit inside the building. This system can also be found on page 93, under the attack building section, which is required to grant permission to attack in the first place as it falls far outside of the standard rules for attacking, vehicles or otherwise. Given that we have rules specifically designed for this occasion, we are required to use all those rules; model or not.

Yes, but those rules are in addition to, or instead of the basic rules that precede it. In CC you still have to allocate wounds/hits to the closest model. Then if you allocating a glancing or penetrating hit, the unit inside gets hit as well.

and since were back on CC, ongoing combat in successive turns (pg 76): yes or no for buildings?
I'd say yes, but then I think buildings count as transport models.

If it only counts as a transport when charged, as others have claimed....

Since you are given permission to attack a building like a vehicle then successive turns (pg 76) should apply as well.

Nevermind

sirlynchmob wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

I saw that

You should take the stance that if a building is not a model, you can not assign any wounds to it.

Sure you can attack like it's a vehicle, but then as you can't see any "models" the wound pool empties.

But I'd agree melta and lance work against buildings, armourbane does not though.

Armorbane would work as well.

Fragile wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

I saw that

You should take the stance that if a building is not a model, you can not assign any wounds to it.

Sure you can attack like it's a vehicle, but then as you can't see any "models" the wound pool empties.

But I'd agree melta and lance work against buildings, armourbane does not though.

Armorbane would work as well.

Can you give an example of a non-vehicle model that has an armor value? What are they trying to restrict here?

The only way you can read that is they were trying to exclude buildings. But they did a horrible job of it.

Armorbane has no effect on anything with a Toughness value.

The rules treat buildings as vehicles, therefore there would no way to exclude buildings unless it was specifically stated.

Well the Fleshbane USR states "In either case, this special rule has no effect against vehicles." (35)

This leads me to believe the line "this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." (32) in the Armorbane rules means that it is of no use against anything that is not a vehicle since you do not roll for Armor pen against a model with a Toughness value.

You cannot treat them as vehicles and not treat them as vehicles.

Fragile wrote:
You cannot treat them as vehicles and not treat them as vehicles.

Was that directed at me, because I have no idea what your meaning behind this is.

Last I checked buildings stated they were treated like transport vehicles...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the Fleshbane USR states "In either case, this special rule has no effect against vehicles." (35)

This leads me to believe the line "this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." (32) in the Armorbane rules means that it is of no use against anything that is not a vehicle since you do not roll for Armor pen against a model with a Toughness value.

Ok, I can see based on the fleshbane rule for comparison, that armorbane would work against building models

One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

If a building is not a model, and it's not a vehicle, it is the very definition of a non vehicle model.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

No, buildings are not models at all.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings have no unit type so they are not models. They are terrain however.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

If a building is not a model, and it's not a vehicle, it is the very definition of a non vehicle model.

That is the most failed logic I have ever seen.

If a building is not a model, and not a vehicle it is most certainly NOT a non-vehicle model, because it is not a model.

A building is a Terrain Piece, it is a terrain piece that can be targeted by attacks under certain situations(while either occupied or claimed, claimed only if you are using stronghold assault).

The building rules state that you roll to hit and armour penetration as normal in shooting. It then states that close combat attacks automatically hit. This does not mean that you do not roll for armour penetration as normal for close combat attacks(because that would mean the hits do nothing), instead we must read into the rules and figure that the Building is treated as a Vehicle for the first 2/3 of attack resolution(rolling to hit, and then rolling for armour penetration), Melta functions fine because at half range to the building you are in effect rolling to penetrate a vehicle's armour(i.e. you are rolling for armour penetration). Lance works Similarly in that it treats a vehicles AV as 12, and you are treating the building like a vehicle in order to resolve that part of the attack.

Melta bombs are not at all Melta weapons, they do not have the Melta rule. What they do have is Armourbane which just directly effects Armour Penetration rolls made in Close combat(this one is completely clear to work on buildings as you are simply effecting an Armour Penetration roll with no reference to vehicles).

Logic 101 Double negatives cancel each other out.

so a "Not Non vehicle model" is a "vehicle model".

Is a building a vehicle model? no, so therefore it is a not a vehicle model or grammatically a "non vehicle model"

sirlynchmob wrote:
Logic 101 Double negatives cancel each other out.

so a "Not Non vehicle model" is a "vehicle model".

Is a building a vehicle model? no, so therefore it is a not a vehicle model or grammatically a "non vehicle model"

Not necessarily true.
There is no double negative.
A non-vehicle model is a model that is not a vehicle. Since Buildings are not models they cannot be a non-vehicle model.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Logic 101 Double negatives cancel each other out.

so a "Not Non vehicle model" is a "vehicle model".

Is a building a vehicle model? no, so therefore it is a not a vehicle model or grammatically a "non vehicle model"

Not necessarily true.
There is no double negative.
A non-vehicle model is a model that is not a vehicle. Since Buildings are not models they cannot be a non-vehicle model.

A non vehicle model is also anything that is not specifically a vehicle model.

The part they are highlighting is that it must be a Model for us to determine what type of Model it is.
As it is a piece of terrain it can be stated that it is "not a vehicle model," but that is different then a statement that it is a "non-vehicle Model" as that requires it to be a Model in the first place.

JinxDragon wrote:
The part they are highlighting is that it must be a Model for us to determine what type of model it is.
As it is a piece of terrain it can be stated that it is "not a vehicle model," but that is different then a statement that it is a "non-vehicle Model" as that requires it to be a Model in the first place.

In your opinion, sure. Grammatically there is no difference between a "not vehicle model" and a "non-vehicle model" Non is a prefix meaning not.

is the building a vehicle? no, ergo it is a non-vehicle
is the building a model? no, (according to some) ergo it's a non-model

together it equates to a non-vehicle model.

It's a funny exclusion at the end of the rule as all vehicles are models, the only thing that has armor and is also a non vehicle model are buildings. Buildings are the very definition of a non-vehicle model and therefore not affected by armor bane.

But just curious and to help me understand your position better, can buildings shoot using the skyfire rules? If it can use the SR, then it's because it's a model firing a weapon with that rule right?

Buildings are models though, that whole unit type nonsense only applies to infantry.

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The part they are highlighting is that it must be a Model for us to determine what type of model it is.
As it is a piece of terrain it can be stated that it is "not a vehicle model," but that is different then a statement that it is a "non-vehicle Model" as that requires it to be a Model in the first place.

In your opinion, sure. Grammatically there is no difference between a "not vehicle model" and a "non-vehicle model" Non is a prefix meaning not.

Actually there is a difference. One is a not "vehicle model" while the other is a "not vehicle" model.

is the building a vehicle? no, ergo it is a non-vehicle
is the building a model? no, (according to some) ergo it's a non-model

together it equates to a non-vehicle model.

No, together it would be a non-vehicle non-model.

It's a funny exclusion at the end of the rule as all vehicles are models, the only thing that has armor and is also a non vehicle model are buildings. Buildings are the very definition of a non-vehicle model and therefore not affected by armor bane.

No the note at the end is a reminder that models taht are not vehicles cannot be affected. Just like Fleshbane says it has no effect on vehicles.

But just curious and to help me understand your position better, can buildings shoot using the skyfire rules? If it can use the SR, then it's because it's a model firing a weapon with that rule right?

What building has the Skyfire special rule?

Buildings are models though, that whole unit type nonsense only applies to infantry.

Buildings are models using the definition of model equating to a physical representation of the thing in question. You could have a forest model or a hill model or even a crater model. The rules definition of model includes having a unit type, which Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Vehicles, etc. have but buildings do not.

 Happyjew wrote:

But just curious and to help me understand your position better, can buildings shoot using the skyfire rules? If it can use the SR, then it's because it's a model firing a weapon with that rule right?

What building has the Skyfire special rule?

Buildings are models though, that whole unit type nonsense only applies to infantry.

Buildings are models using the definition of model equating to a physical representation of the thing in question. You could have a forest model or a hill model or even a crater model. The rules definition of model includes having a unit type, which Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Vehicles, etc. have but buildings do not.

That unit type only applies to infantry though, and is not an exclusion to anything else. because as pg 44 tells us, the basic rules so far pertain to infantry. Not vehicles and not buildings. so trying to use it to exclude buildings also excludes vehicles. All infantry models have a unit type and it only applies to infantry.

And the firestorm redoubt building has a skyfire weapon, which only the building can fire.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

No, buildings are not models at all.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings have no unit type so they are not models. They are terrain however.

Wow this is till going. For the record I did put in a question to the GW FAQ people by Email, back when I first posted this, as we know the FAQ's have yet to be updated.

Anyways: As per consensus.

A building is not a model but is considered terrain because it has no unit type.

You shoot at and CC a building like a Vehicle.

Armourbane states that you do not get the extra dice against non-vehicle models.

The rules in general give no allowance for how to deal damage to terrain.

It seems it can be concluded that a Building/Fortification is not a model, but is terrain with an Armour Value, thus meaning that a building is neither a vehicle model nor a non-vehicle model. A building has no Wounds, no Hull Points, but does have an Armour value, and a BS (in most cases).

If a Building is not a Vehicle Model then by logic it must be a non-vehicle Model, except that a Building is not a non-Vehicle Model because it is terrain. Rules such as Melta/Lance/Armourbane let you effect Vehicle models, and give exceptions regarding non-vehicle Models, but give no rules on what to do regarding terrain.

So if a Building/Fortification is Terrain that you shoot at and CC like a vehicle even though it is not a Vehicle one must take into account that rules which affect a vehicle may not always have an effect on a Terrain piece. Walkers are similar in the regard that they are one unit type and in some circumstances are treated as another unit type.

A walker is a vehicle that is treated like infantry when in CC, and there are pages of rules on how to resolve all things CC with a Walker. A walker is a Model because it has a unit type and a Stat line. A walker is a Vehicle and not an infantry model. One would be thought daft to make a claim that a Walker could not be effected by Armourbane in CC because it was treated like an infantry model. When it is always a Vehicle model that is being treated like a infantry model while in CC.

The same goes for a building, if a Building is not a model but is terrain then rules that effect models have no effect on a building, and only rules that effect terrain effect a building. A building does not change into a vehicle nor does it gain a unit type when shoot at or engaged in CC, it is treated like but its type never changes, it is (as many seem to point out) a piece of terrain. Thus it is neither a Vehicle Model (So things that affect vehicles have no effect) nor is it a Non-Vehicle Model (So things that affect Non-Vehicle Models have no effect).

So Which it is? Model/Non-Vehicle Model/Terrain/Other?

I don't know how much simpler I can get then:
For something to be defined as a Non-vehicle Model, it has to first meet the definition of Model.
Should you want to call it a non-vehicle non-model that would be fair, but notice the second 'non-' in there as it is very important to be an accurate description of what you are trying to describe.

The biggest problem I have with sirlynchmob's interpenetration on 'non-vehicle model' is that it turns everything that does not have Unit Type: Vehicle into Models... the table, the players and even the air itself are all suddenly Models. That creates huge problems when it comes to playing the game as now every Rule will need instructions on how it can Resolve against Terrain, against the players, against the air itself and any thing else that we might decide to interact with during the course of the game. As these do not have needed elements for us to even begin to resolve the Rules against, the whole game enters the 'black hole of Rules' and might as well be tossed into the bin for how playable it is.

The other interpenetration that the Rule Defined Terminology of 'non-vehicle Model' requires a Unit Type to begin with, one that happens to not be 'Vehicle,' causes no such breaks in the Rules and has Page Quoted Rule support to boot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BladeRiker,
Someone vast some dark necromancy on the thread and instead of just letting a mod close it people decided to argue over what is and isn't a model lacking the unit type vehicle.....

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't know how much simpler I can get then:
For something to be defined as a Non-vehicle Model, it has to first meet the definition of Model.
Should you want to call it a non-vehicle non-model that would be fair, but notice the second 'non-' in there as it is very important to be an accurate description of what you are trying to describe.

The biggest problem I have with your interpenetration on 'non-vehicle model' is that it turns everything that is not a defined Unit Type: Vehicle into Models... the table, the players and even the air itself are all suddenly Models. That creates huge problems when it comes to playing the game, Rules as Written or otherwise, as now every Rule will need instructions on how it can Resolve against Terrain and other pieces that are not by default Models. As these pieces do not have needed elements for us to successfully resolve the rules against the whole game enters the 'black hole of Rules' and might as well be tossed into the bin for how playable it is.

The other interpenetration, taking into account that something can be a non-vehicle while still not being a Model, makes no problems with Rule resolution.

It does meet the definition of a model though, you're trying to make it meet the definition of a infantry model, then excluding it from all models because it's not infantry.

there is no huge problem with this, it's not some overwhelming black hole, the building rules say how to resolve things against them, they're not just terrain.

June is coming

RAW Buildings in your army count as friendly units, function as friendly units and they are models.

Can you shoot terrain? no, but you can shoot enemy units.
can you assault terrain? no, but you can assault enemy units.

On what page is Model defined, by the Rules as Written, which allows something lacking a Unit Type to meet said definition of Model?
After all, I don't have a Unit Type so I therefore have to be a non-vehicle Model by your definition....

PS:
We can assault buildings because we have Rules designed specifically for how to go about Assaulting a Building and conditions which grant us permission to evoke them at certain times.
By your definition I would be able to Assault a forest, it is a non-vehicle model and I can assault non-friendly models by Rule as Written, which creates huge amounts of problems as the Assault can not be resolved as the forest has no weapon skill, no wound value or anything else needed to resolve the assault....

JinxDragon wrote:
On what page is Model defined, by the Rules as Written, which allows a player to meet said definition of Model?
After all, I don't have a Unit Type so I therefore have to be a non-vehicle Model by your definition....

they don't, pg 2 and 3 describe infantry models. as pg 44 tells us.

so we use the dictionary definition of what a model is.

Are you a vehicle model? but if you want to call yourself a vehicle model, I will respect your life choices.

sirlynchmob,
There is 0% chance in your interpretation being correct, it leads to black hole's and over-looks so many fundamentals of Rules Writing.

Yet I'm still just wanting to lay across a battle field and state "By some guys interpretation on the internet I am Model, feel free to try and shoot me but you can't reduce my Wounds/Hull Points to 0 as I do not have them and because I am wider then 12 inches you will never be able to move your men to engage my force... forfeit yet?" Or better yet, seeing as we only have permission to deploy Models in 'Your Army' and the player is not selected as part of 'Your Army...' no entity not part of Your Army can ever occupy space on the board or over it, which makes moving models a little bit impossible. Maybe we can even go with the whole 'permission to move X inches is only granted to Unit Types: X Y and Z, as the player lacks any they have to sit perfectly still and never move a inch... first one to do so has completed an illegal action and has to forfeit!"

As fun as your interpenetration is, the Unit Type and Vehicle section contain Rules that over-write the 'basic infantry rules' by the fact they exist to specifically inform us how these other Unit Type's function.

JinxDragon wrote:
sirlynchmob,
There is 0% chance in your interpretation being correct, it leads to black hole's and over-looks so many fundamentals of Rules Writing.

Yet I'm still just wanting to lay across a battle field and state "By some guys interpretation on the internet I am Model, feel free to try and shoot me but you can't reduce my Wounds/Hull Points to 0 as I do not have them and because I am wider then 12 inches you will never be able to move your men to engage my force... forfeit yet?" Or better yet, seeing as we only have permission to deploy Models in 'Your Army' and the player is not selected as part of 'Your Army...' no entity not part of Your Army can ever occupy space on the board or over it, which makes moving models a little bit impossible. Maybe we can even go with the whole 'permission to move X inches is only granted to Unit Types: X Y and Z, as the player lacks any they have to sit perfectly still and never move a inch... first one to do so has completed an illegal action and has to forfeit!"

As fun as your interpenetration is, the Unit Type and Vehicle section contain Rules that over-write the 'basic infantry rules' by the fact they exist to specifically inform us how these other Unit Type's function.

LOL, nice strawman. and ad hominem

when you calm down let me know and we'll continue to discuss RAW.

RAW only infantry are models. the fact you'll include vehicles and not buildings shows how wrong you are. consistency in the rules should be added to the golden rule

I'm only taking your argument to the logical conclusion:
If anything that is lacking a Unit Type: vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then so am I, and that creates a great deal of problems as I now required to interact with the Rules in the same way as any other non-vehicle Model.

Instead, I include vehicles because they contain specific instructions on how to determine their Unit Type and what those Unit Types mean. Buildings lack this definition, not even a Unit Type: Fortification let alone a Unit Type: Building which I really would love to see in the Rules. As they lack any spefic Rule informing us that they meet the requirement to be a model, I will not be able to apply model related Rules to them. The only rules I will apply are those specifically designed for interacting with Buildings, Rules that wouldn't have to exist in the first place if Buildings where Models, because that is why they where Written.

This is one of the reasons I'm glad that the necron codex refers to "non-vehicle models" as "models" and vehicles as "vehicles".

I think you should get the special rules against buildings due to previous FAQs on the subject.

For example, entropic strike specifically states that it can lower the armor value of a vehicle. The FAQ states that entropic strike can also be used against buildings.

If entropic strike can be used against a building, why wouldn't melta, lance, armourbane, ect?

JinxDragon wrote:
I'm only taking your argument to the logical conclusion:
If anything that is lacking a Unit Type: vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then so am I, and that creates a great deal of problems as I now required to interact with the Rules in the same way as any other non-vehicle Model.

Instead, I include vehicles because they contain specific instructions on how to determine their Unit Type and what those Unit Types mean. Buildings lack this definition, not even a Unit Type: Fortification let alone a Unit Type: Building which I really would love to see in the Rules. As they lack any spefic Rule informing us that they meet the requirement to be a INFANTRY model, I will not be able to apply INFANTRY model related Rules to them. The only rules I will apply are those specifically designed for interacting with Buildings, Rules that wouldn't have to exist in the first place if Buildings where Models, because that is why they where Written.

Fixed that for you, you take them from not being an infantry model and like your argument take it to it's logical fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum.

Just like a vengeance weapon battery can auto fire it's quad gun with skyfire, and use the skyfire rule even though the SR worded for "models" Buildings work much better in the rules when treated as models they are. and the universe doesn't collapse from it.

I'm curious where in the rule book it says that buildings are treated as vehicles in CC. I found where is says they are treated that way for shooting, but all I could find for CC was that buildings are hit automatically. So even if you say melta works when shooting (Which it should IMO) the rules don't say you treat it as a vehicle for CC.

Jestar wrote:
I'm curious where in the rule book it says that buildings are treated as vehicles in CC. I found where is says they are treated that way for shooting, but all I could find for CC was that buildings are hit automatically. So even if you say melta works when shooting (Which it should IMO) the rules don't say you treat it as a vehicle for CC.

Read the rule again, after shooting it says charge. it's all the same bolded rule.

Ah cheers, thanks for that

Which brings us once more to the fact the Rule book informs us that buildings use a range of rules for Vehicles and then goes about informing us which Rules these are and how to go about resolving them as they proclaim to Vehicles. This includes instructions granting the Building permission to Fire any weapons it possess, providing us with vitally needed instructions on how to go about doing that as well. This grants us permission to consider the Building a Model with Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport), but only in the exact moments laid out by the Building rules. Any time we are outside of those situations we do not have permission to treat it as a Vehicle, and at that point it looses it's Model status and the rules no longer can interact with it as if it was a Building.

I, again, highlight that this entire Rule-set would have no purpose if the building was a friendly-model by default!

You may as well stop arguing, Sirlynchmob will not change his position, regardless of empirical evidence.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
You may as well stop arguing, Sirlynchmob will not change his position, regardless of empirical evidence.

...which is empirically a true statement, given the empirical evidence for the statement that is available.

The rulebook requires any model to have a unit type; if it has no unit type it is not a model. Non-vehicle non-model is a correct way to describe a building, but it is redundant as vehicle is a model type and therefore the non-model designation handily disqualifies it from being a vehicle either.

Jinx, if we are now models (since we are non-vehicle models), does that mean we can just put our arms around our army to prevent enemy models from approaching, since they would not be able to move within 1" of us?

Probably violates Rules on deploying Models, hence why I wonder if it is even possible for us to interact with the game at all under that interpretation...
After all, if everything that is not a Vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then we have to interact with the rules in th same way as other Non-vehicle Models to be legal.

JinxDragon wrote:
Probably violates Rules on deploying Models, hence why I wonder if it is even possible for us to interact with the game at all under that interpretation...
After all, if everything that is not a Vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then we have to interact with the rules in th same way as other Non-vehicle Models to be legal.

Keep tilting at that windmill, I thought this was a RAW forum. Now didn't you just get done saying

JinxDragon wrote:
This grants us permission to consider the Building a Model with Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport), but only in the exact moments laid out by the Building rules.

A non-vehicle model is a model that is not a vehicle. Since Buildings are not models they cannot be a non-vehicle model.

so now you're claiming it's a model and not a model at the same time. LOL

Here you are saying it's a model, and it's not a vehicle. meeting your own criteria for armorbane not to work.

sirlynchmob,
I repetitively have put forth that Buildings are "Unit Type: Vehicles (Transport)" in certain situations, because the Rules inform us of that fact, and always have concluded that anything which effects a Vehicle will have permission to effect a Building in those situations thanks to the whole 'count as' fundamental. It is you whom keeps trying to take part of that argument out of context, just like you try and take half of the defined terminology 'Non-Vehicle Model' out of context, in order to support a false conclusion. The fact you have been shown how this breaks all sorts of Rules, and have been given page and paragraph quotes to the Rules giving support to the alternative interpretation while you can only put forth these 'out of context' arguments, should of been enough to convince anyone of their mistake.

Still, you are entitled to your Opinion but good luck getting anyone else to agree with you when people can point to a sentence stating that Buildings use aspects of the Vehicle (Transport) Rules and then the following page which defines those aspects and how they work for buildings.

As for the 'windmill,' it was your argument that anything which isn't classified as a 'Vehicle Model' must therefore be a 'non-vehicle Model.' For that to apply to Buildings it must also be universally applicable to everything else that meets the same criteria or else it has been proven false right there and there. This creates a large number of problems because only a very few things in the game have been defined as Vehicles, while some other things meet the definition of a non-vehicle model by being models and not being vehicles. Everything else, including the players and the table itself, are never defined as 'non-Vehicle Models' or 'Vehicle Models' in order to prevent them from having to interact with the Rules as Written in strange and broken ways.

Your interpretation makes the players into Models, and creates these problems.

Again for me and my group:
RAW: ???
RAI: Don't care
HIWPI: Armourbane, melta, ect work on fortifications.

And that's all that matters.

jinx
Let me know when you start being logical, when you have to try and declare something a model, yet not a model at the same time.

If your idea of logic is to first call something a model, then turn around and call it a non-model to get a special rule to work, it's not going to convince anyone, and makes it seem like you're being TFG.

If RAW buildings being models, lead you to think they should apply to you deploying yourself, that's more of your non-logic. What if your opponent is a paid model in the military and is in a infantry unit? OMG the rules are broke. That's not RAW, that's chicken little. Because in context of the rules you think have including the rules to yourself to disprove my position while claiming context lol

I at least stick with one interpretation. "buildings are not infantry models, they are models though" If we go through everything that interacts with buildings we'd probably match up 90% RAW. the 10% difference would be when you start this "it's a model, but it's not a model" argument. my way is consistent, you're way picks and chooses when to apply model to buildings, creating real RAW issues and makes you look like TFG. But, you're entitled to you hypocrisy.

Let me ask you as simple question:
A Building is placed in the center of the map at the start of the game, during terrain placement, and neither side has yet entered this building....
What prevents it from being shot at if it is a Model that does not belong to Your Army?

Under the interpretation that I, and many other here, utilize it can only be considered a Vehicle (Transport) Model once it has met the Criteria put forth by the Rules. This Criteria is very easy to meet, any question concerning a building likely falls within the ~ 95% of the times the building has already triggered the 'uses aspects of Vehicle (Transport) Rule.' In fact, the above question is one of the few situations in which the Building does not meet the criteria. At that point it is not recognized as a 'Friendly Model,' Vehicle or otherwise, but still fails to trigger the General permission we have to target and fire at it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Let me ask you as simple question:
A Building is placed in the center of the map at the start of the game, during terrain placement, and neither side has yet entered this building....

What prevents it from being shot at if it is a Model that does not belong to your Army?

So your trying to say it's a dilapidated building?

RAW, neither side can shoot at it as it's not a enemy unit it can't be targeted. pg 12 (enemy unit you can see)
stronghold assault pg 15 clarifies this.

not sure of the point you want to make here because Model or non-model has nothing to do with it.

speaking of odd shooting, if you shoot at a unit near a building with a blast weapon and it scatters onto the building with no units in the battlements, is there a model under the template to be hit?
How about skyfire? can a VWB use it's normal BS to shoot at fliers?

Should the building be unclaimed, there is only Terrain under the blast maker and that does not created a 'wound pool' or triggered 'Armour Penetration Rolls.'

As for the SkyFire:
The building is using Aspects of the Vehicle (transport) Rules at that point in time, and can be interacted as a Model for that reason alone.

JinxDragon wrote:
Should the building be unclaimed, there is only Terrain under the blast maker and that does not created a 'wound pool' or triggered 'Armour Penetration Rolls.'

As for the SkyFire:
The building is using Aspects of the Vehicle (transport) Rules at that point in time, and can be interacted as a Model for that reason alone.

Is this how you play it though?

I'm glad you're consistent here, others on the non-model side have disagreed with blast markers.

Now since the blast did not see any models under the template, how about a fortification, macro cannon aquila strongpoint with no units on the battlements, shoots it's blast weapon (autofire) at the nearest enemy and it scatters back onto itself? Is there still just terrain under the marker or is there a model under the blast marker?

I, personally, have a always had problems when it comes to Buildings and the way they where so badly written into the book. For that reason I would always discuss these things ahead of time, find out how my opponent wants to play it and go with that for the duration of that game. Many people rather treat the Building as a full fledged Model and I honestly have no problem with that because it is far more simple then the half a dozen pages the Authors have given us. I also prefer the tactical advantage of being able to destroy unclaimed buildings from Turn 1, to deny my opponent firing points prior to them actually getting into those superior positions. I won't force this House Rule onto people, nor use it in a Rule Debating Forum, but if they are willing and able I am more then happy to allow it.

I think my frustration comes from the fact that it would of easily been fixed had the Authors simply created a "Unit Type: Vehicle (Building / Fortification)" and given them a proper profile. Buildings function so similar to Vehicles, in all bar that once in a blue moon situation where it is technically not a Model, that it just makes damn sense to create a Unit Type designed for just them. The other way they could have fixed the problem was to embrace the concept of 'Neutral Models' and tell us how to interact with them, likely a simple line stating they can not be targeted or removed as casualties. This new terminology could be applied to all Terrain pieces, with some of them having additional exceptions to the Neutral Model Rules. Such as Buildings which would have a sentence stating they can be Targeted if 'claimed,' like they already do, plus an additional sentence allowing them to be Removed as Casualties, something that was only added in Stonghold Assault in any case.

As for the Aquila Cannon thingy:
The shooting sequence can be resolved against it, thanks to it's claimed status and the 'utilizing the 'Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport) Rules' sentence granting it permission to access said sequence in the first place.

JinxDragon wrote:
I, personally, have a always had problems when it comes to Buildings and the way they where so badly written into the book. For that reason I would always discuss these things ahead of time, find out how my opponent wants to play it and go with that for the duration of that game. Many people rather treat the Building as a full fledged Model and I honestly have no problem with that because it is far more simple then the half a dozen pages the Authors have given us. I also prefer the tactical advantage of being able to destroy unclaimed buildings from Turn 1, to deny my opponent firing points prior to them actually getting into those superior positions.

I think my frustration comes from the fact that it would of easily been fixed had the Authors simply created a "Unit Type: Vehicle (Building / Fortification)" and given them a proper profile. Buildings function so similar to Vehicles, in all bar that once in a blue moon situation where it is technically not a Model, that it just makes damn sense to create a Unit Type designed for just them. The other way they could of fixed the problem was to create a Rule stating Terrain classify as 'Neutral Models' and tell us how to interact with them, which would likely be a simple line stating they can not be targeted or damaged. Buildings would then have an exception to this Rule, giving permission to Target if 'claimed' like they already do and one stating it can be damaged even if unclaimed.

As for the Aquila Cannon thingy:
The shooting sequence can be resolved against it, thanks to it's claimed status and the 'utilizing the 'Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport) Rules' sentence granting it permission to access said sequence in the first place.

so if we were to play, the only contention between what I claim is RAW, and HYWPI, seems to be from armor bane. that hardly equates to me being 0% correct and we should just throw out all the rules eh?

Because armorbane means nothing to me, I don't bring buildings, I bring a skyshield, and I have no units with armorbane, so I bet we would end up agreeing with all the rules as they pertain to buildings based on our two different ways to get to those conclusions.

the aquila cannon highlights the flaw in those who stick to a building is never to be considered a model ever. As that means the aquila weapons could place the blast marker over itself to hit any unit on the battlements, and buildings are immune to blast markers unless they are specifically targeted so they can be shot like a vehicle.

If we are discussing House Rules there is not correct/incorrect answer. If we are discussing Rule as Written then the only correct answer is 'terrain are not models' and all the problems that come with that are Rule as Written supported. I've never tried to state that the Rules as Written, for Terrain in particular, is 100% logical and rational. Nor have I ever claimed that Rule as Written have never lead us into broken situations in the past. There are many examples where the Rules as Written have been lacking but that doesn't make the House Rules used to fix them 'correct.'

In this situation I hold to the interpretation that the sentence informing us that Buildings use 'aspects of Vehicle Transports" grants it permission to be count as a Vehicle for the purpose of the Rules following that statement as that is the closest we can come to Rule as Written support for Buildings to be Models... now if the following Rules where not all about 'claimed' buildings I could allow that to be a blanked statement for all Buildings being Vehicle Models....

JinxDragon wrote:
If we are discussing House Rules there is not correct/incorrect answer. If we are discussing Rule as Written then the only correct answer is 'terrain are not models' and all the problems that come with that are Rule as Written supported. I've never tried to state that the Rules as Written, for Terrain in particular, is 100% logical and rational. Nor have I ever claimed that Rule as Written have never lead us into broken situations in the past. There are many examples where the Rules as Written have been lacking but that doesn't make the House Rules used to correct them 'correct.'

I just hold the interpretation that the sentence informing us that Buildings use 'aspects of Vehicle Transports" grants it permission to be count as a Vehicle for the purpose of the Rules following that statement... now if the following Rules where not all about 'claimed' buildings I could allow that to be a blanked statement for all Buildings being Vehicle Models....

and that hard line, means RAW buildings are immune to any blast marker not specifically shot at them. It also leads to any building with a blast weapon to be able to fire it's blast with the template touching the building, as long as the hole is over the enemy model.

Then after the blast scatters, the unit suffers one hit for each model, which the non-model camp will tell you buildings are neither a unit nor model. ergo immune to blasts. it can even place it's blast over it's battlements as the blast rules tells us how infantry models work, vehicle rules restrict placing the marker touching it's hull, buildings have no such restrictions nor a hull.

Because in the end the argument for non-model is "it's not a infantry model, so it's not a model" But we'll allow vehicles to be models and ignore all the other rules about models because it has a vehicle type.

what is the strength, toughness or wounds of a vehicle? 0 eh? so they're auto removed at the beginning of the game RAW like models are. see the buildings are not models because they're not infantry leads to some really absurd situations especially when followed with but vehicles are.

now read through the rules again and put the word 'infantry' in front of all usages of the word model and the rules start making a whole lot more sense.

so RAW we have 2 rules for models that only apply to infantry. RAW only infantry are models and vehicles are vehicles. And buildings can't be specifically called a vehicle as it doesn't have hull points.

So we either play by some really absurd RAW, or we can use model as grammatically correct and it can mean infantry, vehicle, building or terrain in the context of the rule we're discussing.

so in the end at least be consistent and not picking and choosing when to use model. It's all or nothing, when you start picking and choosing you move into TFG territory.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Because in the end the argument for non-model is "it's not a infantry model, so it's not a model" But we'll allow vehicles to be models and ignore all the other rules about models because it has a vehicle type.

When has anyone said that non-infantry models are not models?

what is the strength, toughness or wounds of a vehicle? 0 eh? so they're auto removed at the beginning of the game RAW like models are. see the buildings are not models because they're not infantry leads to some really absurd situations especially when followed with but vehicles are.

They are not 0, they are non-existent. And again, no one has said that buildings are not models because they are not Infantry. They are not models because they do not have a stat line nor a Unit type.

so RAW we have 2 rules for models that only apply to infantry. RAW only infantry are models and vehicles are vehicles. And buildings can't be specifically called a vehicle as it doesn't have hull points.

Then what are Beasts, Cavalry, Monstrous Creatures, and Flying Monstrous Creatures?

so in the end at least be consistent and not picking and choosing when to use model. It's all or nothing, when you start picking and choosing you move into TFG territory.

Some of us are being consistent. Does the thing in question have a statline and unit type? If so it is a model (per the Warhammer 40K rules). If not, it is not a model (per the Warhammer 40K rules).

An Undefined Value does not mean the value is 0, and seeing the Rule you are referencing requires it to reach 0 before the model is removed as Casualty this is a non-issue. Like wise, Buildings still do not have Hull Points or wounds, so there is no way for any number of 'Glancing Hits' or 'wound creating hits' to ever trigger the Remove as Casualty conditions spelled out in the Rules. If it wasn't for Stronghold assault giving us another method to remove a Building as a Casualty there would be a grand count of Zero for the number of situations that would lead to a Building being removed as a Casualty... and it still would be a non-issue, annoying but a non-issue.

I do understand what you are trying to do with the Infantry model stance but even if you where correct it doesn't have the effect of making Buildings into Models. It would have the effect of making the entire rule book a Black Hole when it comes to anything but infantry, along the same line as 'models without eyes can not fire or assault.' Instead people are going to rely on the fundamental concept that "Specific Rules trump Basic Rules," and point out that even if the the Basic Rules where designed with Infantry in mind they still stand for every other Unit Type as well, except where the more Specific Rule within creates a conflict, as they are the only Rules we have and therefore need to be the default. Should there be any complaint over that interpenetration then they will fall back on a universal 'House Rule' to ignore the conflict entirely and proceed as if the Rule book did state that all basic rules apply to all unit types, except when there is a conflict between the two.

As for your closing statement:
I treat them as Models when they meet the definition of a Model and treat them as non-models should they fail that definition, that is my constant stance on the matter.

 Happyjew wrote:


Some of us are being consistent. Does the thing in question have a statline and unit type? If so it is a INFANTRY model (per the Warhammer 40K rules). If not, it is not a INFANTRY model (per the Warhammer 40K rules).

When has anyone said that non-infantry models are not models?

You just did, the rules you are quoting only apply to infantry models. pg 44. So I fixed it for you.

Then what are Beasts, Cavalry, Monstrous Creatures, and Flying Monstrous Creatures?

as pg 44 tells us, they are infantry.

Beasts, Cavalry, Monstrous Creatures, and Flying Monstrous Creatures are not Infantry...

If they were they would be able to embark on a transport.

"we will now cover a series of unit types, each with their own abilities and special rules. Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)." (44)

Infantry is a unit type, Beasts are a unit type, etc...

JinxDragon wrote:
An Undefined Value does not mean the value is 0, and seeing the Rule you are referencing requires it to reach 0 before the model is removed as Casualty this is a non-issue. Like wise, Buildings still do not have Hull Points or wounds, so there is no way for any number of 'Glancing Hits' or 'wound creating hits' to ever trigger the Remove as Casualty conditions spelled out in the Rules. If it wasn't for Stronghold assault giving us another method to remove a Building as a Casualty there would be a grand count of Zero for the number of situations that would lead to a Building being removed as a Casualty... and it still would be a non-issue, annoying but a non-issue.

I do understand what you are trying to do with the Infantry model stance but even if you where correct it doesn't have the effect of making Buildings into Models. It would have the effect of making the entire rule book a Black Hole when it comes to anything but infantry, along the same line as 'models without eyes can not fire or assault.' Instead people are going to rely on the fundamental concept that "Specific Rules trump Basic Rules," and point out while the Basic Rules where designed for infantry they still stand for every other Unit Type as well, except where the more Specific Rule within creates a conflict with the basic Infantry Rules. Should there be any complaint then they will fall back on a universal 'House Rule' to ignore the conflict entirely and proceed as if the Rule book did state that all basic rules apply to all unit types, except when there is a conflict between the two.

As for your closing statement:
I treat them as Models when they meet the definition of a Model and treat them as non-models should they fail that definition, that is my constant stance on the matter.

The point is, if you just see the word model and no other reference to anything else, RAW it is a infantry model and can only apply to an infantry model. When people apply it to vehicles as well they're being inconsistent and have no RAW to do so.

and I see people who pick and choose when a building is a model and when it's not, as being inconsistent.

the basic rules in context talk about infantry models, when applied to vehicles, then we're talking about vehicle models, and when applied to buildings we're talking about building models. RAW though, you can use model grammatically for any infantry, vehicle, or building.

A building is therefore a non-vehicle model.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The point is, if you just see the word model and no other reference to anything else, RAW it is a infantry model and can only apply to an infantry model. When people apply it to vehicles as well they're being inconsistent and have no RAW to do so.

Not true. when you see the word model the BRB is referring to page 2 that defines models.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 ate referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile." (2)

So we know that "each model has its own characteristics profile." (2)

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type"(3)

We now also know that "each model will have a unit type"(3)

Buildings do not have a unit type. A building is therefore not a non-vehicle model because a building is not a model at all.

and I see people who pick and choose when a building is a model and when it's not, as being inconsistent.

The building is never a model as defined by the 40k rules. It can be treated as a vehicle when you are shooting at it in certain situations though.

the basic rules in context talk about infantry models

Not true as I have proven from page 2.

when applied to vehicles, then we're talking about vehicle models, and when applied to buildings we're talking about building models.

Not true as buildings are not models, check page 2 above.

RAW though, you can use model grammatically for any infantry, vehicle, or building.

This is also incorrect as per page 2 Buildings are not models as defined by the 40k ruleset.

A building is therefore a non-vehicle model.

False Premise = false conclusion.

Does it matter to this argument that they said that they all work on fortifications in the white dwarf in their answer a question segment?

 Leth wrote:
Does it matter to this argument that they said that they all work on fortifications in the white dwarf in their answer a question segment?

Is it in the FAQ? Then I would not bank on it being true until it is. Which at the way they are updating it may be never....