Had a weird question come up and was just wondering if people knew the answer to it, it's in regards to the if you have no models on the board at the end of turn you lose. Do Aegis Defense Lines etc.. count toward that rule?

Nope, it's in the faq and stronghold assault also says fortifications do not count.

so if all you have left are fortifications, you've been wiped out.

Thanks. I figured it was in a FAQ or something. I just wasn't finding it.

Fortifications are not models/units, as they do not have a unit type, they are terrain.

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

I think you would be hard-pressed to say that an ADL is not a model... otherwise, we have to create a new title for the thing you're placing on the table. "Unit" is something of an imaginative description, it is the role, within the setting of the game, that a model(s) or figurine fills... but in reality it's a bit of shaped plastic or metal, commonly called a "model".

Bit of a difference between "model" (the shaped plastic you mentioned) and "model" (the game defined meaning).

And Aegis is the former model, but not the later.
If hit by a blast, you count models under the marker. Wounds are allocated to models etc... Neither of those can be applied to an Aegis. And as mentioned before, it isn't a model simply because it lacks a unit type (strangely enough, unit type only ever applies to models, never units).

This is why GW is in sore, sore, SORE need of a Technical Editor that enforces a set style on them. That way, when they use a word or term in their writings, it has a defined, known meaning, and none of their publications deviate from that.

 Psienesis wrote:
This is why GW is in sore, sore, SORE need of a Technical Editor that enforces a set style on them. That way, when they use a word or term in their writings, it has a defined, known meaning, and none of their publications deviate from that.

Problem is, terms like "unit type" have been around for years (at least since 3rd ed).
If you're going to re-do the system, suddenly all the Codex need to be replaced/FAQ'd (unlike other game systems that don't have separate books for each race that overlap editions).

I mean we still have a heavy flamer that isn't heavy, but that's been around since Rogue Trader era, weapon types haven't. Would take quite a lot for a complete overhaul.

 Psienesis wrote:
I think you would be hard-pressed to say that an ADL is not a model... otherwise, we have to create a new title for the thing you're placing on the table. "Unit" is something of an imaginative description, it is the role, within the setting of the game, that a model(s) or figurine fills... but in reality it's a bit of shaped plastic or metal, commonly called a "model".

Except the 40K ruleset defines what model means, and that includes a unit type.

The miniature, or Phys Rep that is the ADL is commonly called a (model), but it is not a "Model" as defined by the 40k Ruleset as it does not have a unit type.

Well in that case do they get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Fortifications are not units. However, if something specifies models, then they are affected.

Hollismason wrote:
Well in that case do they get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Does terrain get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

viewfinder wrote:
Fortifications are not units. However, if something specifies models, then they are affected.

Not necessarily true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Well in that case do they get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Does terrain get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Can I shoot a bunker with a Death Ray?



Imohtek's ability specifically targets a enemy unit , if it's a vehcile it is hit on side armour. Of course it has no rules for buildings or anything else so how do even determine that but then buildings have the same armour value all around , I think.

I dunno it depends on whether they call Aegis Defense Lines enemy units. Or if it has Unit Type : Terrain.

I dunno it depends on whether they call Aegis Defense Lines enemy units. Or if it has Unit Type : Terrain. 

Fortifications are not units and "unit type: terrain" does not exist.

Hollismason wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Well in that case do they get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Does terrain get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Can I shoot a bunker with a Death Ray?


Imohtek's ability specifically targets a enemy unit , if it's a vehcile it is hit on side armour. Of course it has no rules for buildings or anything else so how do even determine that but then buildings have the same armour value all around , I think.

I dunno it depends on whether they call Aegis Defense Lines enemy units. Or if it has Unit Type : Terrain.

Unit Type : Terrain is not a thing. This is because terrain is not a unit.

P.S. you can shoot ad a building as per the building rules that allow you to make shooting attacks at a building that is occupied.

Viewfinder: Go find a couple of 100lb dumbells, and pick them up. Then just stand there holding them.....keep doing it....

After a while you proclaim "Man, this is hard work"
Everyone around you agrees...

The nearby Physicist 'corrects' you, that you are not doing any work at all.
You see, in the 'world of physics' the term 'Work' has a specific definition.... different from the accepted common definition. (Work is a force through a distance)


the term 'model' has an accepted common definition, but in the 'world of 40K' it has a specific definition, different from the common one.

When playing with physics, or with 40K, you need to use the terms *they* use, not the common ones.


To wit: The Large Blast Marker is also a 'template' by common definition. 40K says Templates ignore cover. By your logic, LBMs will also ignore cover.

Hollismason wrote:
Well in that case do they get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Yes, enemy buildings count as enemy units. and buildings function like any other unit in your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I think you would be hard-pressed to say that an ADL is not a model... otherwise, we have to create a new title for the thing you're placing on the table. "Unit" is something of an imaginative description, it is the role, within the setting of the game, that a model(s) or figurine fills... but in reality it's a bit of shaped plastic or metal, commonly called a "model".

Except the 40K ruleset defines what model means, and that includes a unit type.

The miniature, or Phys Rep that is the ADL is commonly called a (model), but it is not a "Model" as defined by the 40k Ruleset as it does not have a unit type.

give it a rest already.

40k defines what a infantry model is, and infantry models have unit types. any usage of the word model in the rule book could either be dictionary model or infantry model.

sirlynchmob wrote:
40k defines what a infantry model is, and infantry models have unit types. any usage of the word model in the rule book could either be dictionary model or infantry model.

Not true, as 40k Defines what model means to the ruleset. Any mention of model as it pertains to terrain is simply an error on the editor as terrain and fortifications are not 'models' as the BRB defines.

The definition does not include terrain/buildings because terrain/buildings do not have a unit type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Well in that case do they get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Yes, enemy buildings count as enemy units. and buildings function like any other unit in your army.

only when shooting or assaulting them.

The Storm is neither

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
40k defines what a infantry model is, and infantry models have unit types. any usage of the word model in the rule book could either be dictionary model or infantry model.

Not true, as 40k Defines what model means to the ruleset. Any mention of model as it pertains to terrain is simply an error on the editor as terrain and fortifications are not 'models' as the BRB defines.

The definition does not include terrain/buildings because terrain/buildings do not have a unit type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Well in that case do they get hit by Imohtek's Storm?

Yes, enemy buildings count as enemy units. and buildings function like any other unit in your army.

only when shooting or assaulting them.

The Storm is neither

the BRB only defines model for infantry.

so the storm which happens in the shooting phase, has a ranged weapon profile, yet it's not a shooting attack?

If the storm is some sort of non attack, then where are the rules telling us how to do a non shooting, non assaulting attack? or any rules defining what constitutes a non attack. pg # will be good here.

If you're so sure about needing rules to define a model, then you should also be able to cite rules to define a non attack, or just state it's your opinion.

The BRB defines all models infantry, beasts, vehicles Etc... as models as long as they have a unit type.

The base rules assume infantry, and beasts have additional rules, but they still follow all of the rules for infantry with the noted exceptions.

For the storm, it has rules that tell you how to apply damage even though it is not a CC or a shooting attack.

There are many things that are not shooting or CC attacks, like the Imperial Knights stomp attack, Soulblaze, Vector Strike Etc...

 DeathReaper wrote:
The BRB defines all models infantry, beasts, vehicles Etc... as models as long as they have a unit type.

The base rules assume infantry, and beasts have additional rules, but they still follow all of the rules for infantry with the noted exceptions.

For the storm, it has rules that tell you how to apply damage even though it is not a CC or a shooting attack.

There are many things that are not shooting or CC attacks, like the Imperial Knights stomp attack, Soulblaze, Vector Strike Etc...

nope, not vehicles. vehicles have vehicle types, which you equate to a unit type without any specific rule to do so. Yet saying terrain type is also equal to unit type is just going to far? If vehicles are models, so is terrain. and since we're talking about the ADL, if you claim the gun emplacement is not a model, then when it is reduced to 0 wounds it still stays on the table, as only models are removed when they have 0 wounds.

ok I suffer the d6 str 8 hits, now what? there are no further rules on how to proceed. so I guess you roll your d6, get x hits, and it's done. as it's not following the shooting or assault sequences that's all were told to do.

sirlynchmob wrote:
nope, not vehicles. vehicles have vehicle types, which you equate to a unit type without any specific rule to do so.

Except for the rules on page 44...

"...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)."

Vehicles are still units as per page 44, but are "distinct enough to require their own section..."

Also if vehicles were not units they could never perform shooting attacks. This alone destroys your argument.

"During the Shootng phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks" (12)

Yet saying terrain type is also equal to unit type is just going to far?

Yes, because terrain is not listed in the unit types section at all, unlike vehicles.

If vehicles are models, so is terrain.

There is literally no basis for this, it is simply incorrect.

and since we're talking about the ADL, if you claim the gun emplacement is not a model, then when it is reduced to 0 wounds it still stays on the table, as only models are removed when they have 0 wounds.

ok I suffer the d6 str 8 hits, now what? there are no further rules on how to proceed. so I guess you roll your d6, get x hits, and it's done. as it's not following the shooting or assault sequences that's all were told to do.

The emplacement is terrain, this is demonstrably true.

There is an allowance to shoot at it, ergo you have to follow the shooting rules when shooting at it, which requires you to remove that piece of terrain when it has 0 wounds left. saying you just roll hits and nothing else has no basis in te rules at all.

so which rule lets you remove terrain from the table? especially when you claim you can't even modify terrain.

models get removed when they get to 0 wounds.

sirlynchmob wrote:
so which rule lets you remove terrain from the table? especially when you claim you can't even modify terrain.

models get removed when they get to 0 wounds.

The shooting rules you have to use against that piece of terrain.

They tell you it can be shot, so it essentially acts like a model for that shooting attack, if it didn't you would never be able to shoot it at all because "All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (13)

To shoot the same target unit, we must substitute target terrain for the rule to function at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
so which rule lets you remove terrain from the table? especially when you claim you can't even modify terrain.

models get removed when they get to 0 wounds.

The shooting rules you have to use against that piece of terrain.

They tell you it can be shot, so it essentially acts like a model for that shooting attack, if it didn't you would never be able to shoot it at all because "All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (13)

To shoot the same target unit, we must substitute target terrain for the rule to function at all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/04 20:36:02

oh now it's terrain acting like a model?

what happened to:

Fortifications are not models/units, as they do not have a unit type, they are terrain.
"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)
The miniature, or Phys Rep that is the ADL is commonly called a (model), but it is not a "Model" as defined by the 40k Ruleset as it does not have a unit type.
Not true, as 40k Defines what model means to the ruleset. Any mention of model as it pertains to terrain is simply an error on the editor as terrain and fortifications are not 'models' as the BRB defines.

you used model and unit in reference to terrain

 Psienesis wrote:
I think you would be hard-pressed to say that an ADL is not a model... otherwise, we have to create a new title for the thing you're placing on the table. "Unit" is something of an imaginative description, it is the role, within the setting of the game, that a model(s) or figurine fills... but in reality it's a bit of shaped plastic or metal, commonly called a "model".

We have a title for these things we are placing on the battlefield.

They are called terrain.

They only ever use the rules for terrain and their own additional special rules along with the selection and deployment rules of Fortifications.

An aegis defence line is a defensive line(terrain type) with a few special rules. The quad gun is a gun emplacement(again terrain type) with no other special rules. they have rules based on them being part of the fortifications slot found in either the BRB or stronghold Assault book(if you are using it).

They are never models just like a Defense lines and gun emplacement placed during terrain placement are never models(coincidentally you can use the exact same pieces).

By that logic then Death Ray or anything that draws a line and passes over models does not affect them.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fortifications are not models/units, as they do not have a unit type, they are terrain.
"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)
The miniature, or Phys Rep that is the ADL is commonly called a (model), but it is not a "Model" as defined by the 40k Ruleset as it does not have a unit type.
Not true, as 40k Defines what model means to the ruleset. Any mention of model as it pertains to terrain is simply an error on the editor as terrain and fortifications are not 'models' as the BRB defines.

you used model and unit in reference to terrain

You must not have understood the context of what I wrote there...

I said that [terrain] does not have a unit type.

Not it says does not have...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
By that logic then Death Ray or anything that draws a line and passes over models does not affect them.

Except for the part about fortifications being able to be shot at and attacked in CC...

Time to back DR here.

A model, as defined by the BRB must have two things going for it. I must have a characteristic profile complete with unit type and must be part of (or the whole of) a unit. Some pieces of terrain have a profile. That does not define them as a model because they are lacking in unit type and an associated unit they belong to. Some pieces of terrain can be targeted by ranged and CC attacks. That does not meet any of the qualifications.

...and yes, vehicles are well defined as models.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." -Page 3, BRB, Forming a unit

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." -Page 3, BRB, Characteristic Profiles

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44." -Page 3, BRB, Other Important Information

"...unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile..." Page 44, BRB, Unit Types

"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 like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." -Page 77, BRB, Bold text at the top

Then by your own admission it most certainly is a "unit" even if not listed. Since it is purchased as part of your army.

Hollismason wrote:
Then by your own admission it most certainly is a "unit" even if not listed. Since it is purchased as part of your army.

That would be a fallacious assumption. Notice, I did not mention 'purchased as part of an army' as a qualification. Everything I said was defined by the BRB. There is, to my knowledge, no known statement in any of rule books that deems spending points on something defines that thing as a model.

 Abandon wrote:
Time to back DR here.

A model, as defined by the BRB must have two things going for it. I must have a characteristic profile complete with unit type and must be part of (or the whole of) a unit. Some pieces of terrain have a profile. That does not define them as a model because they are lacking in unit type and an associated unit they belong to. Some pieces of terrain can be targeted by ranged and CC attacks. That does not meet any of the qualifications.

...and yes, vehicles are well defined as models.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." -Page 3, BRB, Forming a unit

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." -Page 3, BRB, Characteristic Profiles

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44." -Page 3, BRB, Other Important Information

"...unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile..." Page 44, BRB, Unit Types

"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 like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." -Page 77, BRB, Bold text at the top

I think individual models make up a unit even if they are comprised of a total of 1.

Look you can jump through all the semantic loops you want, A bunker you purchased is a Model, something that shoots at you is a Enemy Model, Enemy Models form units.

This is literally argument of semantic discord.

 Abandon wrote:
Time to back DR here.

A model, as defined by the BRB must have two things going for it. I must have a characteristic profile complete with unit type and must be part of (or the whole of) a unit. Some pieces of terrain have a profile. That does not define them as a model because they are lacking in unit type and an associated unit they belong to. Some pieces of terrain can be targeted by ranged and CC attacks. That does not meet any of the qualifications.

...and yes, vehicles are well defined as models.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." -Page 3, BRB, Forming a unit

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." -Page 3, BRB, Characteristic Profiles

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44." -Page 3, BRB, Other Important Information

"...unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile..." Page 44, BRB, Unit Types

"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 like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." -Page 77, BRB, Bold text at the top

Why don't you quote the first part? "the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

That's all you need to be a model. This covers infantry, vehicles, buildings, terrain, whatever. all citadel models used to play the game are models.

the other part of pg 44 you missed. "so far we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry,"

all you did is quote the requirements for infantry to be formed into a unit and apply it to everything else.

squadrons are treated like units, just like buildings function like any other unit. but neither have a unit type. one has a vehicle type and one has a terrain type.

Then we have quad guns.

so if a quad gun is not a model, then do you remove it from play when it is reduced to 0 wounds?
and the deathray, does it affect the quad gun? or any marker /template that looks down and see's the quad gun.
if it's not a model, they don't get hit, nor removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

What rule tells you, that you can either remove terrain from the table, or modify it after the game starts?

Pretty much that.

This isn't Schrodinger's Wargaming , it's a model. It's also purchased by my enemy, that makes it a enemy model.

Hollismason wrote:
Pretty much that.

This isn't Schrodinger's Wargaming , it's a model. It's also purchased by my enemy, that makes it a enemy model.

No, as noted by the rules quote of page 3, if it does not have a unit type it is definitely not a model as 40k defines model...

Hollismason wrote:

I think individual models make up a unit even if they are comprised of a total of 1.

Look you can jump through all the semantic loops you want, A bunker you purchased is a Model, something that shoots at you is a Enemy Model, Enemy Models form units.

This is literally argument of semantic discord.

Yes, refusing to recognize and properly apply game specific terms can lead to that. It's one of a host of problems that generally stem from individuals who obstinately refuse to stop utilizing real world concepts, ideas and definitions in 40k rules.

Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

sirlynchmob wrote:

Why don't you quote the first part? "the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

That's all you need to be a model. This covers infantry, vehicles, buildings, terrain, whatever. all citadel models used to play the game are models.

This is incorrect. You left out further definition in context to that quote.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 ate 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 Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile."

Add in all the previously listed definitions as well for a full picture and the rules definitively do not define terrain pieces as models. As that has been proven several time already you have in fact only successfully proven they are not miniatures either.

 Abandon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Why don't you quote the first part? "the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

That's all you need to be a model. This covers infantry, vehicles, buildings, terrain, whatever. all citadel models used to play the game are models.

This is incorrect. You left out further definition in context to that quote.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 ate 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 Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile."

Add in all the previously listed definitions as well for a full picture and the rules definitively do not define terrain pieces as models. As that has been proven several time already you have in fact only successfully proven they are not miniatures either.

LOL

and you missed some questions:

so if a quad gun is not a model, then do you remove it from play when it is reduced to 0 wounds?
and the deathray, does it affect the quad gun? or any marker /template that looks down and see's the quad gun.
if it's not a model, they don't get hit, nor removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

What happens when a piece of terrain reaches zero wounds? Well if you don't remove it your opponent gives you the same look he did when you moved you models inside the hill and called WMS.

Finding GW did not dot all their i's and cross all there t's is nothing new.

 Abandon wrote:
What happens when a piece of terrain reaches zero wounds? Well if you don't remove it your opponent gives you the same look he did when you moved you models inside the hill and called WMS.

Finding GW did not dot all their i's and cross all there t's is nothing new.

Or, the use of the word model throughout the book means the dictionary use of the word. You're using the rules for 'infantry model' to excluding it from all usages of the word model. I agree it's not a infantry model, but it is a model.

and as the quad gun is a miniature and a model, you can remove it at 0 wounds.

it's RAW and less messy.

I've also never claimed WMS allows for levitation or for hiding inside solid objects.

That is the look I give people who keep using this "not a model" argument, while treating like a model so it can be hit with blasts, or removed from play. if you're going to claim it's not a model, then own up to it and follow it through. Because if your so sure that RAW a quad gun is not a model, then why not just state RAW even at 0 wounds, nothing tell you to remove it from play, nor to stop using it. Then follow it up with a HIWPI if necessary.

Because Finding GW did not dot all their i's and cross all there t's is nothing new, can very well mean the intent of the word 'model' has never been just for infantry but the common dictionary usage.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

Again your stating my case, Aegis Defense Lines have characteristics. Also the second sentence is an example giving "such as.." is an example it's not the only two types.

Sorry but you can argue all you like but a Aegis Defense Line is a enemy model , now whether it is a "unit" is unclear and I will agree on that point. But it is most certainly a model.

p. 2-3
"Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawnedDaemons.To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
Warhammer 40,000 uses nine different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.
Every modelin Warhammer 40.000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.
In addition toitscharacteristics profile, each model will have aunit type, such as Infantry orCavalry "


Please explain how an ADL meets this definition.....

Hollismason wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

Again your stating my case, Aegis Defense Lines have characteristics. Also the second sentence is an example giving "such as.." is an example it's not the only two types.

Sorry but you can argue all you like but a Aegis Defense Line is a enemy model , now whether it is a "unit" is unclear and I will agree on that point. But it is most certainly a model.

In addition to its characteristics profile, a model will have a unit type.
What is the unit type of an ADL? Citation requires - as you've asserted multiple times it's a model, it should be trivial to point this out.

Hollismason wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

Again your stating my case, Aegis Defense Lines have characteristics. Also the second sentence is an example giving "such as.." is an example it's not the only two types.

Sorry but you can argue all you like but a Aegis Defense Line is a enemy model , now whether it is a "unit" is unclear and I will agree on that point. But it is most certainly a model.

ADL's do have characteristics, but they lack a unit type, and we know, if it is a model, that "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

What is the ADL's unit type? it must have one if it is a model because we know that "each model will have a unit type"...

If it does not have a unit type it is not a 'model'

Hollismason wrote:
By that logic then Death Ray or anything that draws a line and passes over models does not affect them.

I am going to assume this is directed at me.

The building rules(found in Terrain) allow for shooting at and assaulting some buildings like they are vehicles. Since we treat buildings as vehicles for the purposes of attacks we logically conclude(and generally HIWPI) that death rays can hit the occupied(or Claimed if using Stronghold Assault) buildings. They never even hit unoccupied(or unclaimed) buildings for exactly the same reasons(they are pure terrain and have no allowances for being attacked). This takes care of the occupy-able buildings.

Then we move further through the BRB to Gum emplacements. It is simply allowed to be shot at and attacked in close combat. This is a special rule inherent to these pieces of terrain; we again have Collectively House-ruled/HIWPI that Death rays can hit them because of this allowance.

Now on to your actual statement: Yes that is exactly correct; Death Ray and similar attack technically cannot hit Buildings and gun emplacements. On top of that; of course they cannot hit or effect the Aegis defense line in any way.

Which brings me to the refute of your further claims in this thread: If Fortifications are models as you claim, what does the death ray do to an Aegis Defense Line(or barricades and walls purchased for a bastion in the Stronghold Assault book)? Nothing, Nothing because they are not Models.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Then we move further through the BRB to Gun emplacements. It is simply allowed to be shot at and attacked in close combat. This is a special rule inherent to these pieces of terrain; we again have Collectively House-ruled/HIWPI that Death rays can hit them because of this allowance.

This.

Gun emplacements can be targeted due to Emplacement rules. When you buy a Quad gun for an aegis, you buy an emplacement.
The Aegis line is never a model.
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

No - still not a model because it doesn't have a Unit Type. It just gives permission to do certain things with it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

No - still not a model because it doesn't have a Unit Type. It just gives permission to do certain things with it.

Unit Type: Artillery?

Like the Space Marine Tarantula?
(Ed:Reference:Rules)

That'd be great if the rules for the Quad gun said that.

They don't. You're assuming they do. And giving it the Artillery unit type causes issues (because it assumes there's a crew member, for example).

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

No - still not a model because it doesn't have a Unit Type. It just gives permission to do certain things with it.

Unit Type: Artillery?

Like the Space Marine Tarantula?
(Ed:Reference:Rules)

If it was unit type artillery it would be removed from the table the very second it is deployed(No crew and no special rule allowing it to remain crewless like the tarantula).

What it is, is Terrain type: Battlefield debris(Gun emplacement) and that does not make it a model.

If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

If the Quad-gun was a model would it not immediately be removed as a casualty?

After all per page 3, "-" is the same as "0". A model with 0 Wounds, Toughness, or Strength are immediately removed. Gun Emplacement has "-" Strength.


Of course I guess this means that Artillery guns and Eldar Weapon Platforms would also immediately be removed.

I though it was only removed if it *reaches* 0 in those stats; starting at 0 isnt counted in this.

Hmmm, good point. Objection withdrawn.

 grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

FAQs are down right now, but you have it backwards.

An FAQ reminding you that certain things are not counted with gun emplacements does not mean the rest are fair game. It still is not a model and so the rest still do not work.

Unless you can quote the FAQ saying that they can be tank shocked and/or pinned

Kel - I wouldn't suggest waiting for this, as sirlynch seems to be under the impression that "every model" only means "every infantry model" , despite this being of course false. Evidence has been presented and ignored....

Yay! I can never be tabled again! There's still an ADL on the field!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kel - I wouldn't suggest waiting for this, as sirlynch seems to be under the impression that "every model" only means "every infantry model" , despite this being of course false. Evidence has been presented and ignored....

ya how dare I use the rules which specifically states this to be true.

You have no evidence to the contrary which is blatantly obvious when you include vehicles as models.

if vehicle profile = characteristic profile
and vehicle type = unit type

with no rules what so ever to support this. then it's also fair to say that models with a vehicle or characteristic profile, and a terrain type are also models.

It's RAW and doesn't create absurd situations of floating models, and quad guns that never die unless house ruled to be a model.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
FAQs are down right now, but you have it backwards.

An FAQ reminding you that certain things are not counted with gun emplacements does not mean the rest are fair game. It still is not a model and so the rest still do not work.

Unless you can quote the FAQ saying that they can be tank shocked and/or pinned

Why wouldn't they be pinned?

Even DR who shares your opinion says:

They tell you it can be shot, so it essentially acts like a model for that shooting attack, if it didn't you would never be able to shoot it at all because "All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (13)

a quad gun can be shot with weapons that cause pinning tests.
does the quad gun say it cannot be pinned?
a quad gun is not a vehicle right?
a quad gun can suffer a unsaved wound right?
and it auto fails its leadership as it has no leadership.

and if the quad gun is not a model, then what happens when it reaches 0 wounds? as only models get removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

They can not go to ground as they are terrain, therefore they can not be pinned and the rules for pinning will have no effect on a Gun Emplacement.

Plus, I have proven that vehicle is a unit type. Here is the rule again in case you missed it:

"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)."

Here they cover a series of unit types vehicles require their own section of rules because rules for vehicle units are distinct enough to require their own section later on.

Also Page 77: "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 like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." (Emphasis mine)

Indisputable proof that vehicles are in fact units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
They can not go to ground as they are terrain, therefore they can not be pinned and the rules for pinning will have no effect on a Gun Emplacement.

Plus, I have proven that vehicle is a unit type. Here is the rule again in case you missed it:

"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)."

Here they cover a series of unit types vehicles require their own section of rules because rules for vehicle units are distinct enough to require their own section later on.

Also Page 77: "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 like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." (Emphasis mine)

Indisputable proof that vehicles are in fact units.

yes a unit, without a unit type. so therefore not a model based on your own criteria.

yet again, vehicles have their own section as they do not have a unit type.

squadrons are treated like units, just like buildings are treated like units.

you yourself admit quad guns are shot like they are a unit, and "you can declare that the UNIT is going to ground" RAW: quad guns can be pinned or choose to go to ground.

Well vehicles do have a unit type, check out the GK Codex Page 93, Stormraven listing. "Unit Type: Vehicle (Fast, Skimmer)

There is further proof that Vehicle is a unit type. Convinced yet?


Also: Quad guns can NOT be pinned or choose to go to ground.

Terrain simply does not have that choice.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kel - I wouldn't suggest waiting for this, as sirlynch seems to be under the impression that "every model" only means "every infantry model" , despite this being of course false. Evidence has been presented and ignored....

ya how dare I use the rules which specifically states this to be true.

You have no evidence to the contrary which is blatantly obvious when you include vehicles as models.

if vehicle profile = characteristic profile
and vehicle type = unit type

with no rules what so ever to support this. then it's also fair to say that models with a vehicle or characteristic profile, and a terrain type are also models.

It's RAW and doesn't create absurd situations of floating models, and quad guns that never die unless house ruled to be a model.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
FAQs are down right now, but you have it backwards.

An FAQ reminding you that certain things are not counted with gun emplacements does not mean the rest are fair game. It still is not a model and so the rest still do not work.

Unless you can quote the FAQ saying that they can be tank shocked and/or pinned

Why wouldn't they be pinned?

Even DR who shares your opinion says:

They tell you it can be shot, so it essentially acts like a model for that shooting attack, if it didn't you would never be able to shoot it at all because "All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (13)

a quad gun can be shot with weapons that cause pinning tests.
does the quad gun say it cannot be pinned?
a quad gun is not a vehicle right?
a quad gun can suffer a unsaved wound right?
and it auto fails its leadership as it has no leadership.

and if the quad gun is not a model, then what happens when it reaches 0 wounds? as only models get removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

Quad gun, or gun emplacements, do not have to say they cannot be pinned. Pinning weapons effect units, they are certainly not units; pinning has no effect.

No one really knows what happens to a gun emplacement that is reduced to 0 wounds, it is not a model so is not removed, technically reducing it to 0 wounds has no effect, but the general consensus is that they stop functioning(it is an accepted house rule and general HIWPI as it gives an effect to being reduced to 0 wounds)

You cannot tank shock them to any effect for 2 reasons:
1) they are not models, they are terrain, so unless you and your opponent declare them diificult or impassable the tank just moves over them with no effect to either the vehicle nor the gun emplacement
2) if, IF, they where a model; they are not enemy models, therefore are impassable and you cannot tank shock over them at all

You are really grasping at straws and finding no purchase.

As far as the quote about units shooting at units, the Gun emplacement(and occupied/Claimed building) rules allow for them to be targeted, this is all that is needed and does not make those pieces of terrain "units"; it makes them targetable terrain, terrain that your unit is targeting and without other special rules in place your unit can only select 1 target.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well vehicles do have a unit type, check out the GK Codex Page 93, Stormraven listing. "Unit Type: Vehicle (Fast, Skimmer)

There is further proof that Vehicle is a unit type. Convinced yet?


Also: Quad guns can NOT be pinned or choose to go to ground.

Terrain simply does not have that choice.

check out pg 70, see vehicle type. is that a unit type from pg 44? no

so vehicles can be units, but not models, based on your criteria. If you allow vehicles, then buildings & quad guns fit the same criteria for being a model.

your argument is for quad guns goes:

they're not models.
you shoot them like one and a unit and you've house ruled it to be a model so you can either remove it from play at 0 wounds or leave it there non functioning.
but then they're no longer models nor units again so you can't pin them.

Then you're fine with levitating buildings, but pinning a quad gun just goes to far?

doesn't that sound really odd to you? you switch positions twice in one basic shooting sequence. This is why I'm unconvinced. you pick and choose when to use the words model & unit with these terrain pieces based seemingly on your whim alone.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

^winner...

While I admit i skimmed a few posts on this thread but it looks like to me the core context of a question is "can the OP blow up an ADL using Imotekh's Lightning attack?".


ADLs are defense lines w/o armor value or any stat-line in 6th edition. So how would you even destroy it in normal 40k? (Apoc has formations that remove pieces of terrain but that's outside of the scope here I"m pretty certain).


To my knowledge, you cannot damage an ADL (just the gun emplacement if taken). So what's the question again? Or was the OP just trolling?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

That FAQ simply states fortifications do not count as models on the battlefield. Oh wait .. that's because they aren't 40k "models" and so this FAQ answer is quite correct (as a clarification of the obvious, that Non Models would, obviously, not count as a model on the battlefield at the end of a game turn). It did not change any rule.

Nor did it state "no, because it's not a model"

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nor did it state "no, because it's not a model"

It did not have to.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

Love the FAQ quote that does not say what you said the FAQ says.

Instead you take an FAQ that confirms Fortifications are not models on the table for determining win/game over conditions to somehow claim it says they are models for any other purposes.

There is no logic, reason, or cohesive thought to any of your statements and at least half of them are easily dis-proven outright lies. Good for you.

no, your assuming why they ruled it that way with no proof of any kind.

They faq does not answer one way or the other that they're models.

faq's can and have changed rules in the past all we know for sure is that they didn't want them to count for victory conditions and that is all.

anything else is the result of your imagination.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

I see no mention of first blood there.

You say it's a model (it isn't) so it must give first blood, no?

And please explain how you go about tankshocking a quad gun.

quadguns have a profile. all gun placements do.

 viewfinder wrote:
quadguns have a profile. all gun placements do.

And? It does not have a Unit type.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

I see no mention of first blood there.

You say it's a model (it isn't) so it must give first blood, no?

And please explain how you go about tankshocking a quad gun.

I also said and stronghold assault ruled it that way. so still no to first blood. Unless we agree to allow it, then when we agree to allow it does that make them models then?

the same way zhadsnark‘ da rippa’ (biker) rams a vehicle.

I've always agreed the rules for fortifications were horribly written. But when you try to add into that mess with "they're not models" it's a even bigger mess, and people end up looking like hypocrites as they change the usage of model every other sentence.

so what happens when a quad gun reaches 0 wounds? you haven't weighed in on this question yet.

That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

It takes quite the bit of convoluted thinking to read into those two things that Fortifications are therefore considered 40k "models" as the rules define.

Unless you decide otherwise = they don't (why .. because non-models don't would be the obvious reason)

First blood - the first unit is worth one victory point .. fortifications do not award victory points <- This does not equate to "Fortifications are models/units but ignore you should them for victory points purposes" in any way, whatsoever. Quite the opposite, it clarifies for you that they are not a unit (and, therefore not a model as defined by the rules), since only units (and objectives) award victory points.

Or, to use the same false logical leap you used earlier; This does not say "Even though they are units/models, ignore them for victory points purposes".

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

It takes quite the bit of convoluted thinking to read into those two things that Fortifications are therefore considered 40k "models" as the rules define.

Unless you decide otherwise = they don't (why .. because non-models don't would be the obvious reason)

First blood - the first unit is worth one victory point .. fortifications do not award victory points <- This does not equate to "Fortifications are models/units but ignore you should them for victory points purposes" in any way, whatsoever. Quite the opposite, it clarifies for you that they are not a unit (and, therefore not a model as defined by the rules), since only units (and objectives) award victory points.

Or, to use the same false logical leap you used earlier; This does not say "Even though they are units/models, ignore them for victory points purposes".

They're models because they're models.

people claim that because they don't meet the description for infantry models then they're not models. That argument being extremely convoluted leads to all sorts of bizarre situations, like levitating buildings and quad guns that never die and a host of other problems these forums are littered with. Then it leads to further lapses of logic where it's claimed, it's not a model, you can shoot it like a model, but they can't g2g because they're not a model. Hypocrisy at it's finest right there.

They rules in stronghold state they don't award victory points as I said, then got called a liar for making up that rule. It was a side argument that was brought up, which has nothing to do with the model or not argument. Because model or not, they don't give up first blood, without the rule they would. We can only assume as to why. It's also just as valid to say GW ruled that way because they are models, they just don't want them to count for victory conditions unless agreed upon.

sirlynchmob wrote:
check out pg 70, see vehicle type. is that a unit type from pg 44? no

Yes, they mention vehicles under the rules for unit types and explain that they are distinct enough from other units to need their own section on page 70...

so vehicles can be units, but not models, based on your criteria. If you allow vehicles, then buildings & quad guns fit the same criteria for being a model.

you are incorrect again. as I have proven vehicles have a unit type in the codex. if they do not have a unit type in the BRB then we look at page 7, see there is a conflict and note that the Codex trumps the rulebook and vehicles actually have the unit type: Vehicle.

your argument is for quad guns goes:

they're not models.
you shoot them like one and a unit and you've house ruled it to be a model so you can either remove it from play at 0 wounds or leave it there non functioning.
but then they're no longer models nor units again so you can't pin them.

Pinning does not matter as the gun does not fire shots, it being pinned has no bearing on the unit firing the gun.

"A unit that has gone to ground cannot move, Run or charge. It can only fire Snap Shots when it wishes to shoot, and can fire Overwatch." (18 Go to ground rules)

This does not have any effect on the gun emplacement because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own.

Then you're fine with levitating buildings, but pinning a quad gun just goes to far?

I do not understand the correlation you are trying to make here.

doesn't that sound really odd to you? you switch positions twice in one basic shooting sequence. This is why I'm unconvinced. you pick and choose when to use the words model & unit with these terrain pieces based seemingly on your whim alone.

You use the rules for units when you are shooting at it because the rules tell you that you can shoot it. the only way to shoot at a gun emplacement is to use the rules in the shooting section. However the Gun Emplacement being pinned means absolutely nothing because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own. Therefore pinning does not have any effect on a gun emplacement.

This is all consistent with the RAW.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

It takes quite the bit of convoluted thinking to read into those two things that Fortifications are therefore considered 40k "models" as the rules define.

Unless you decide otherwise = they don't (why .. because non-models don't would be the obvious reason)

First blood - the first unit is worth one victory point .. fortifications do not award victory points <- This does not equate to "Fortifications are models/units but ignore you should them for victory points purposes" in any way, whatsoever. Quite the opposite, it clarifies for you that they are not a unit (and, therefore not a model as defined by the rules), since only units (and objectives) award victory points.

Or, to use the same false logical leap you used earlier; This does not say "Even though they are units/models, ignore them for victory points purposes".

They're models because they're models.

Not according to the rules definition of models. The English definition, absolutely. However that has no bearing on the rules.

people claim that because they don't meet the description for infantry models then they're not models.

This is a false characterisation of what those who are using the actual rules are stating. But you know this.

That argument being extremely convoluted leads to all sorts of bizarre situations, like levitating buildings and quad guns that never die and a host of other problems these forums are littered with. Then it leads to further lapses of logic where it's claimed, it's not a model, you can shoot it like a model, but they can't g2g because they're not a model. Hypocrisy at it's finest right there.

How does not being a model, for rules purposes, allow the absurd fallacy of levitating buildings? They are terrain. where do you place terrain? (hint, it's not levitating and the rules do state how you place terrain). Sure, I'll give you the quad gun (or any gun emplacement) not having a clear rule for what to do with it when it is reduced to 0 wounds. However, if that is the crux of your argument, acknowledging yourself that the fortification rules are "a mess" (which I don't entirely agree with either, they simply have a few issues that can easily be figured out with some sense), it is a very weak argument to use to claim that fortifications and gun emplacements are in fact models as far as the rules are concerned (and therefore units).

You can shoot a fortification or gun emplacement, treating it like a unit, only under specific circumstances, explicitly stated and outlined in the rules for fortifications.
If, however, fortifications and emplacements/emplaced guns are simply considered to be models (as defined by the rules),and therefore also units, these allowances to shoot at them would not be required as we already have in the rules allowance to shoot and assault units. Instead, restrictions would be required to avoid the mess it would otherwise create if they were simply units/models.

One argument I haven't seen mentioned here is that the ADL is considered a Defense Line. Defense Lines in the BRB (pg 104) are considered battlefield debris and thus difficult terrain. It can't be destroyed (outside of Apoc) and it just exists. It doesn't count towards model count for reserves or being tabled; it's terrain.

So what is the argument everyone is having at this point?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
check out pg 70, see vehicle type. is that a unit type from pg 44? no

Yes, they mention vehicles under the rules for unit types and explain that they are distinct enough from other units to need their own section on page 70...

so vehicles can be units, but not models, based on your criteria. If you allow vehicles, then buildings & quad guns fit the same criteria for being a model.

you are incorrect again. as I have proven vehicles have a unit type in the codex. if they do not have a unit type in the BRB then we look at page 7, see there is a conflict and note that the Codex trumps the rulebook and vehicles actually have the unit type: Vehicle.

your argument is for quad guns goes:

they're not models.
you shoot them like one and a unit and you've house ruled it to be a model so you can either remove it from play at 0 wounds or leave it there non functioning.
but then they're no longer models nor units again so you can't pin them.

Pinning does not matter as the gun does not fire shots, it being pinned has no bearing on the unit firing the gun.

"A unit that has gone to ground cannot move, Run or charge. It can only fire Snap Shots when it wishes to shoot, and can fire Overwatch." (18 Go to ground rules)

This does not have any effect on the gun emplacement because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own.

Then you're fine with levitating buildings, but pinning a quad gun just goes to far?

I do not understand the correlation you are trying to make here.

doesn't that sound really odd to you? you switch positions twice in one basic shooting sequence. This is why I'm unconvinced. you pick and choose when to use the words model & unit with these terrain pieces based seemingly on your whim alone.

You use the rules for units when you are shooting at it because the rules tell you that you can shoot it. the only way to shoot at a gun emplacement is to use the rules in the shooting section. However the Gun Emplacement being pinned means absolutely nothing because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own. Therefore pinning does not have any effect on a gun emplacement.

This is all consistent with the RAW.

Thanks for the assist on pinning, that was really well written.

so if it's a model pinning has no effect and it doesn't give out first blood.
if it's not a model pinning has no effect and it doesn't give out first blood.

Same out come regardless of how you look at it.

if you stack two bastions and blow up the bottom one you claim the top one just floats there because it's not a model. If how you think the rules work leads to breaking the laws of gravity then it's probably not right. Where if it is a model the top bastion would just get removed from play as well. It was from the stacking thread, but it goes into the model debate.

But hopefully we'll see some new faq's shortly so lets call it a draw for now and continue on in the next thread. Without FAQ's we should see a new 'model' question by saturday

sirlynchmob wrote:
if you stack two bastions and blow up the bottom one you claim the top one just floats there because it's not a model.

Why would it float there, you do not remove the bastion when you blow up the fortification.

If how you think the rules work leads to breaking the laws of gravity then it's probably not right.

Well it does not lead to breaking the laws of gravity, so all is well.

Where if it is a model the top bastion would just get removed from play as well. It was from the stacking thread, but it goes into the model debate.

Well since you do not remove fortifications that get destroyed, there is no reason to remove the bottom bastion, and as such the top bastion (If this is even possible) would not be floating. It would still be stacked on the, now destroyed, bottom bastion.

But hopefully we'll see some new faq's shortly

This I can agree with. I would love for them to fix the gaping holes in the rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:


if you stack two bastions and blow up the bottom one you claim the top one just floats there because it's not a model. If how you think the rules work leads to breaking the laws of gravity then it's probably not right. Where if it is a model the top bastion would just get removed from play as well. It was from the stacking thread, but it goes into the model debate.

So (as I asked for an explaination above) you're using an impossible situation (if we're playing by the rules, that is) to create a defense of your position on terrain (fortifications and gun emplacements) being models/units.
As DR explains above, you do not have any rule permitting you to remove the fortification from the table when it is destroyed, it merely becomes impassible terrain (assuming you can, actually, place a fortification on top of another fortification, which I do not believe works imo), so there is no situation where you end up with a levitating fortification.

stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

sirlynchmob wrote:
stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

As I am discussing the rules from 40k and not stronghold assault I can't deny that line. However, the idea of stacking of fortifications is quite frankly absurd to begin with and would lead to impossible or unaccounted for issues. That, in itself, does not make a fortification a model (based on the rules definition of model in 40k), but rather makes for a rather typical mess of rules that don't account for things that (probably, and in my opinion only) weren't meant to happen.

*edit : I've read the stacking thread and avoided commenting. It's an absurd scenario that I do not believe is intended, at all.

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

As I am discussing the rules from 40k and not stronghold assault I can't deny that line. However, the idea of stacking of fortifications is quite frankly absurd to begin with and would lead to impossible or unaccounted for issues. That, in itself, does not make a fortification a model (based on the rules definition of model in 40k), but rather makes for a rather typical mess of rules that don't account for things that (probably, and in my opinion only) weren't meant to happen.

*edit : I've read the stacking thread and avoided commenting. It's an absurd scenario that I do not believe is intended, at all.

It's the rules for stronghold assault that started the stacking debate. so when discussing stacking, we're discussing stronghold assault.

pg 12 fortification networks, you can place fortifications in contact with each other.

and you're right without stronghold fortifications must stay 3+" away from each other.

some people who are pro stacking are also in the not a model camp. and that leads to floating fortifications.

I'm against stacking and pro model. which would resolve the floating bastion problem.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
stronghold assault pg 17, detonation

"the building is then removed and replaced with scattered wreckage"

@rorschach9 see the stacking thread on the first page, I'd agree you can't stack them, but others will say that you can.

As I am discussing the rules from 40k and not stronghold assault I can't deny that line. However, the idea of stacking of fortifications is quite frankly absurd to begin with and would lead to impossible or unaccounted for issues. That, in itself, does not make a fortification a model (based on the rules definition of model in 40k), but rather makes for a rather typical mess of rules that don't account for things that (probably, and in my opinion only) weren't meant to happen.

*edit : I've read the stacking thread and avoided commenting. It's an absurd scenario that I do not believe is intended, at all.

It's the rules for stronghold assault that started the stacking debate. so when discussing stacking, we're discussing stronghold assault.

pg 12 fortification networks, you can place fortifications in contact with each other.

and you're right without stronghold fortifications must stay 3+" away from each other.

some people who are pro stacking are also in the not a model camp. and that leads to floating fortifications.

I'm against stacking and pro model. which would resolve the floating bastion problem.

The issue there lies in "in contact". The rules for 40K were not written with a vertical in mind. Logically that would lead to "in contact" meaning beside rather than on top of. Anyone using these rules to stack is, most likely, going against the intent. If not, this means that I can stack my infantry on top of your vehicle to be considered "in contact" when assaulting. Obviously that is not what the rules intend.

Being against stacking is enough to resolve the floating bastion problem, regardless of where one stands on fortifications being models or not. Of course, there is still any evidence to support a fortification being a model as the rules of 40k define it (and plenty supporting it not being one), all of which has been stated already.

Rorschach9 wrote:

The issue there lies in "in contact". The rules for 40K were not written with a vertical in mind. Logically that would lead to "in contact" meaning beside rather than on top of. Anyone using these rules to stack is, most likely, going against the intent. If not, this means that I can stack my infantry on top of your vehicle to be considered "in contact" when assaulting. Obviously that is not what the rules intend.

Being against stacking is enough to resolve the floating bastion problem, regardless of where one stands on fortifications being models or not. Of course, there is still any evidence to support a fortification being a model as the rules of 40k define it (and plenty supporting it not being one), all of which has been stated already.

1, I agree, that was my argument

2, I disagree. And those that do agree seem to either house rule it to be one, or admit it's one under the circumstance, so it's really only being functionally different in a few obscure areas.

Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

edit: and where do you stand on placing drop pods on top of a unit?

where do you find these rules for fortification networks? book & page number please

where else do you find a fortification network? book & page number please

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

maybe you should read the thread before you go jumping into the cool aid. You start off with all sorts of incorrect statements, which makes your conclusions questionable.

sirlynchmob wrote:

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

So Monstrous Creatures, Beasts, Jump, Jet Pack, Bike, and Calvary no longer exist?


(Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the troll)

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

Incorrect. All models have a unit type and are not limited to Infantry.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

edit: and where do you stand on placing drop pods on top of a unit?

where do you find these rules for fortification networks? book & page number please

where else do you find a fortification network? book & page number please

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

maybe you should read the thread before you go jumping into the cool aid. You start off with all sorts of incorrect statements, which makes your conclusions questionable.

1) No you can't as you have to DS onto the table, you can however DS onto an unfurled skyshield as per its rules.

2) You can't

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

4) read page 3 under "Other Important Informatiom" first sentence or are you claiming all models are infantry?

5) I have read the thread and not a single statement I made was incorrect. Unless you can point one out.

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

No they don't. Deep striking starts with 'place one model ... on the table'

if 'on the table' means specifically that, then you could never deep strike onto a skyshield, nor battlements, nor aim drop pods on top of units. See you can't even find a concrete definition for 'on the table', nor stick to your own definition of it, yet you think 'model' has one.

so where are these rules for fortification networks? I see you forgot to include them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

edit: and where do you stand on placing drop pods on top of a unit?

where do you find these rules for fortification networks? book & page number please

where else do you find a fortification network? book & page number please

They don't need a unit type, only infantry does.

maybe you should read the thread before you go jumping into the cool aid. You start off with all sorts of incorrect statements, which makes your conclusions questionable.

1) No you can't as you have to DS onto the table, you can however DS onto an unfurled skyshield as per its rules.

2) You can't

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

4) read page 3 under "Other Important Informatiom" first sentence or are you claiming all models are infantry?

5) I have read the thread and not a single statement I made was incorrect. Unless you can point one out.

have you read it, you're the one claiming

Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

and

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

incorrect. you claim they can touch without stronghold assault, then cite stronghold assault as it's source.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also people on the stacking side ignore the rules that terrain is placed on the table. Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

If you believe terrain are models then you can provide a unit type for them. Please tell me the unit type for an Aegis Defence Line.

so can you place deep striking models onto a skyshield? or onto a bastion? why?

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

No they don't. Deep striking starts with 'place one model ... on the table'

if 'on the table' means specifically that, then you could never deep strike onto a skyshield, nor battlements, nor aim drop pods on top of units. See you can't even find a concrete definition for 'on the table', nor stick to your own definition of it, yet you think 'model' has one.

DS rules are general, the skyshield rules are specific and include the ability to DS on top. As for DS'ing onto battlements, I do believe one of the FAQ's mentioned that, however as they're not currently available I can't look them up to verify.
On the table = On the table, and I do stick to that definition throughout. However, when you are given explicit permission to override that, there is no issue with the rules. You can end the false arguments and strawman tactics now, kthnx.

so where are these rules for fortification networks? I see you forgot to include them.

I never discussed them, so I had no reason to discuss it. You do, however, seem to be misconstruing what was being said about them. You can select a fortification network (From SHA) without using the (and it's bolded and underlined above) OPTIONAL rules.

Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

There it is. Thank you for proving me correct.

Of course, in addition to that right in the DS rules it tells you that you can DS into Ruins (on the ground floor) and to treat non-ruined buildings (*** EXCEPT BATTLEMENTS) as impassible terrain. Why "Except battlements" if not to say you can DS onto battlements?
Explicit permission given. No rules broken. Straw Man toppled?

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

There it is. Thank you for proving me correct.

Of course, in addition to that right in the DS rules it tells you that you can DS into Ruins (on the ground floor) and to treat non-ruined buildings (*** EXCEPT BATTLEMENTS) as impassible terrain. Why "Except battlements" if not to say you can DS onto battlements?
Explicit permission given. No rules broken. Straw Man toppled?

ask fling it now, he's the one claiming onto the battlements is not on the table.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

There it is. Thank you for proving me correct.

Of course, in addition to that right in the DS rules it tells you that you can DS into Ruins (on the ground floor) and to treat non-ruined buildings (*** EXCEPT BATTLEMENTS) as impassible terrain. Why "Except battlements" if not to say you can DS onto battlements?
Explicit permission given. No rules broken. Straw Man toppled?

ask fling it now, he's the one claiming onto the battlements is not on the table.

Well then your arguments are meandering all over the place;

sirlynchmob wrote:


No they don't. Deep striking starts with 'place one model ... on the table'
if 'on the table' means specifically that, then you could never deep strike onto a skyshield, nor battlements, nor aim drop pods on top of units. See you can't even find a concrete definition for 'on the table', nor stick to your own definition of it, yet you think 'model' has one.

It's no wonder there is no clear discussion going on..

the only rule is "place a model on the table" which is really vague with no defined meaning. There is no specific rule saying you can deep strike onto battlements, nor onto the skyshield.

the faq says you can DS onto a battlement. FAQ's are not rules, nor do they explain the reasoning behind why they get ruled that way. and they're down right now.

the clear discussion was done on the second post, then the "not a model" crowed showed up and keep bringing up ridiculous red herrings and strawmen

so

Because the rules for them give explicit permission to.

is wrong, the rules for battlements and the rules for the skyshield do not give explicit permission to do so. it is derived from a FAQ, and a vague statement of 'on the table'

have you read it, you're the one claiming

Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

and 

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

incorrect. you claim they can touch without stronghold assault, then cite stronghold assault as it's source.

Oh dear did you really just post that. You clearly haven't read SHA and yet trying to use it as the lynch pin of your bizarre strawman. Do you want to concede now please?

 FlingitNow wrote:

have you read it, you're the one claiming

Also you can have terrain touching each other without using the optional strong hold assault rules simply by selecting a fortification network.

and 

3) Fortification Networks are in strong hold assault. What's your point? Have you even read SHA?

incorrect. you claim they can touch without stronghold assault, then cite stronghold assault as it's source.

Oh dear did you really just post that. You clearly haven't read SHA and yet trying to use it as the lynch pin of your bizarre strawman. Do you want to concede now please?

please explain how you use the rules for strong hold assault while not using them?

If you're using fortification networks, you're using the stronghold assault rules.

Clearly your definition of "on the table" is demonstrable wrong, and strong hold assault has nothing to do with it. so please post something coherent or concede.

please explain how you use the rules for strong hold assault while not using them?

I suggest you read SHA it is clearly explained there.

Clearly your definition of "on the table" is demonstrable wrong, and strong hold assault has nothing to do with it. so please post something coherent or concede. 

Given that we both know you don't have a clue what Strong Hold Assault says or you'd have know what I was talking about. I don't think you should be trying to use that as the lynch pin of your strawman. If my definition of "on the table" is demonstrably wrong please demonstrate it. Yes I forgot the top of a Bastion was battlements which again have their own rules for DSing onto them. That again doesn't prove anything. Plus if you can't see that placing a Bastion on top of another is at best absolute rules abuse being surprised that that results in weird situations when coupled with some optional rules is frankly bizarre.