So a warlord trait lets you infiltrate your warlord and 3 other non vehicle units. Buildings are only treated as vehicles when being shot at. Buildings are not vehicles. So can I put my vengeance weapons battery behind enemy lines for maximum trolling?

Ventiscogreen wrote:
So a warlord trait lets you infiltrate your warlord and 3 other non vehicle units. Buildings are only treated as vehicles when being shot at. Buildings are not vehicles. So can I put my vengeance weapons battery behind enemy lines for maximum trolling?

you might want to read up on the fortification rules.

They are treated as vehicle for more than just being shot at...

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Buildings are only treated as vehicles when being shot at. Buildings are not vehicles.

I think the bigger question is, "Are they technically even units?" Since they don't count as being units on the field when the rest of your people are wiped out. I always viewed them as "Terrain with benefits" which would mean they can't infiltrate.

Also, dunno how your enemy lines usually look, but good luck trying to find a spot in their deployment zone where there are no units for 18" (cuz there's no way you're going to find a 12" radius circle with no LOS).

In addition to what DeathReaper posted, don't forget buildings can get captured.

So feel free to donate it to your enemy in that way

To add an extra level of difficulty; Buildings are not Claimed prior to Deployment.

This is an important distinction as only Claimed Buildings have access to the Rules which given such buildings. As it is a Rule stating that a Claimed building is a Unit in the possessors Army, and Unclaimed Buildings are nothing more then terrain, without access to this Rule the Building stops being a Unit and that causes all sorts of problems with a wide range of rules that effect Models or Units. Therefore the Building has to be deployed before it can be targeted, even if it was a legal choice to begin with, making it too late to benefit from being the target of such a Rule.

JinxDragon wrote:
To add an extra level of difficulty; Buildings are not Claimed prior to Deployment.

Where did you find this? Buildings are claimed if they are purchased as part of your army.

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
To add an extra level of difficulty; Buildings are not Claimed prior to Deployment.

Where did you find this? Buildings are claimed if they are purchased as part of your army.

It's irrelevant really, buildings are treated like vehicles when determining if a special rule affects them. infiltrate says 3 non vehicles. ergo you can't infiltrate them.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
To add an extra level of difficulty; Buildings are not Claimed prior to Deployment.

Where did you find this? Buildings are claimed if they are purchased as part of your army.

It's irrelevant really, buildings are treated like vehicles when determining if a special rule affects them. infiltrate says 3 non vehicles. ergo you can't infiltrate them.

Irrelevant or not, I still wish to know where that came from as I have not found that.

Fragile wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
To add an extra level of difficulty; Buildings are not Claimed prior to Deployment.

Where did you find this? Buildings are claimed if they are purchased as part of your army.

It's irrelevant really, buildings are treated like vehicles when determining if a special rule affects them. infiltrate says 3 non vehicles. ergo you can't infiltrate them.

Irrelevant or not, I still wish to know where that came from as I have not found that.

They're claimed at the start of the game. pg 112. Deploying for battle is where I believe the game starts, but it has been debated around here before on when the game actually starts. so once you say, ok I'm starting to deploy, the game has started and the building may be affected by some special rules that modify deployment. You can even put them in reserves if you'd like.

But claimed or not, they're treated like vehicles for determining special rules. And a claimed building is a unit in your army.

The confusion comes because there are two ways fortifications come into the game.

1) they are part of the 'terrain' and are put down pretty early in the processs. These are 'unclaimed' etc etc.

2) they are purchased as part of your army, and are not on the field until you deploy them along with the rest of your army.


The ones you purchase, are part of your army, and are units of your army. They start the game already claimed.

I will get the Rule when I get back to the library, damn going back to work and all that, but it doesn't come Claimed when purchased.

JinxDragon wrote:
I will get the Rule when I get back to the library, damn going back to work and all that, but it doesn't come Claimed when purchased.

As above: I'd be quite curious if you could quote or post a page number =)

Again, give me some time seeing I am stuck in an office right now....
I only know it exists because it was something reviewed for the 'Mr Lonely' list I keep experimenting with. It was brought to my attention when I was documenting the problems an all Building list would have to over-come. It wasn't one that caused any issue, but it stood out because prior to that moment I would of assumed that all purchased Buildings are considered claimed as part of the List Building process. Prior to that point in the timeline the building is unclaimed as any other....

Under
Preparing for Battle
The Battlefield
Fortifications: " If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models. If you decide to use a fortification as a piece of neutral scenery, then it is set up during this step."

Under stronghold assault buildings are claimed if you buy them for your army

“Fortifications that are buildings typically start the game under the control of one player, and can both attack enemy units and be attacked by them in turn. In many respects, these buildings function like any other unit in a player’s army”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “STRONGHOLD ASSAULT.” iBooks.

Okay, looks like fortifications definitely start under your control.

Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference
between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can’t move, they can be
controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them.

IMO. Buildings are vehicles for more than just shooting

Nem,
Lot of other Rules, at this point it is pretty clear that the Rule has to single out Buildings for exceptions if they effect Vehicles.

I just noticed that the rule in question was actually refered to above by another poster, but it does tell us when a Building gets the claimed status and the Rules that go along with it:
At the start of the game, all buildings that were taken as part of a player’s army are ‘claimed’ by the owning player, whilst all other buildings are ‘unclaimed’.

Prior to the Start point they have no claimed status simply because no Rule has yet given them such status, and only Claimed Buildings are considered to be Units in the Army. The official Start of the Game point can only be defined by looking at the timeline for when Rules that occur Before the Game must be resolved by. Before the Game contains this requirement on the matter: These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle... so Deployment is where the official Start point must lie. Within the Deployment for Battle section contains a very interesting line: Once the Armies are Chosen... which ensures Choosing an Army is something we resolve before before we have access to the Deployment Rules themselves and hit that Start point. As Choosing Your Army is also a noticeable time-line point in most Missions, one that is staked far before Deployment is on the Timeline, there additional evidence to show that List-building is done far before the official Start point of the game.

It is at Deployment when they are officially Claimed and become Units
Warlord Traits must be resolved at the Before the Game point in the timeline, such as selecting Units which will benefit
At time of Resolving Traits the Fortification is just Terrain and not a Unit

Ah, i see the reasoning. They are not claimed until they are deployed, but you select the "3 infiltrating units" from the warlord trait before you deploy.

At which point they are not even existent?

They exist in that semi-real state of 'off the table' with the rest of the full fledged Units awaiting deployment.
I like to consider it the warp... cause it is more humorous to see Buildings floating along side the unprotected Units, all on their way to some other Battlefield.

I see the rule that has you select the Warlord trait before the game starts, I do not see the rule that requires you to determine which 3 units are selected has to be done before the game begins.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you completely ignored the rule I quoted above:

"If a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models."

The only way you can have the 'rest of' is if the fortification is "one of".

"Mary went to the store with the rest of the girls." Makes sense.
"Bob went to the store with the rest of the girls" Does not make sense.

JinxDragon wrote:
Nem,
Lot of other Rules, at this point it is pretty clear that the Rule has to single out Buildings for exceptions if they effect Vehicles.

I just noticed that the rule in question was actually refered to above by another poster, but it does tell us when a Building gets the claimed status and the Rules that go along with it:
At the start of the game, all buildings that were taken as part of a player’s army are ‘claimed’ by the owning player, whilst all other buildings are ‘unclaimed’.

Prior to the Start point they have no claimed status simply because no Rule has yet given them such status, and only Claimed Buildings are considered to be Units in the Army. The official Start of the Game point can only be defined by looking at the timeline for when Rules that occur Before the Game must be resolved by. Before the Game contains this requirement on the matter: These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle... so Deployment is where the official Start point must lie. Within the Deployment for Battle section contains a very interesting line: Once the Armies are Chosen... which ensures Choosing an Army is something we resolve before before we have access to the Deployment Rules themselves and hit that Start point. As Choosing Your Army is also a noticeable time-line point in most Missions, one that is staked far before Deployment is on the Timeline, there additional evidence to show that List-building is done far before the official Start point of the game.

It is at Deployment when they are officially Claimed and become Units
Warlord Traits must be resolved at the Before the Game point in the timeline, such as selecting Units which will benefit
At time of Resolving Traits the Fortification is just Terrain and not a Unit

Can we also remember master of ambush allows for 3 non-vehicle models and buildings are treated as vehicles for use of special rules. Buildings are illegal targets for master of ambush, no matter when they are claimed, they can not infiltrate.

Hey, maybe Bob's just special, okay? Don't judge.

Given that fortifications take up a force org slot and things that take up a force org slot are units, we have to technically say that fortifications are units from the point of selection.

SirLynchmob,
Have not over-looked that, but it is irrelevant to the academical debate of 'when does X occur' which is far more fun right now.

Coredump,
Where in the Warlord Trait does it give permission to make the choice at a later point in the timeline?
Given that the Rule states that choice X occurs, and doesn't state that choice X can be delayed, we can only make that choice when it is presented to us... before the Start of the Game.

As for the whole 'Rest of the Units' take a look at the context of the Rule:
During Deployment

I won't go into detail pointing out that the subject matter of that sentence could be the Entire Army, which makes 'Rest of' read a great deal differently, because it is irrelevant. As the sentence relates to a point after 'Before the Game' abilities have to be Resolved, it further supports the time-line presented within all the other Rules I have quoted. Until someone can prove that Deployment occurs before the Start of the Game, instead of being part of the 'Start of the Game process,' then Buildings are Claimed either before the time it comes to physically put them on the table-top or at the very same time as that act occurs. That would mean, even if your interpretation is correct, that it still doesn't create a conflict with anything that I have put forth....

TehGonzalez,
Where does it state that things which take up Force Organization Slots are Units?
There are Army Building methods which do not use the Force Organization Slots.
- Reviewed: The Choosing your Army section does refer to everything within as if they where Units, which doesn't make Buildings Unit but does even more wonderful broken things to the Rules then I imagined!

JinxDragon wrote:

Coredump,
Where in the Warlord Trait does it give permission to make the choice at a later point in the timeline?
Given that the Rule states that choice X occurs, and doesn't state that choice X can be delayed, we can only make that choice when it is presented to us... before the Start of the Game.

You are creating a rule that does not exist. The trait says three units get an ability, it does not say when I must decide which three. You have created an additional restriction that does not exist in the rules.

So, please either present the rule that states it must be done immediately, or present the rule that I am breaking by deciding during deployment.

coredump wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:

Coredump,
Where in the Warlord Trait does it give permission to make the choice at a later point in the timeline?
Given that the Rule states that choice X occurs, and doesn't state that choice X can be delayed, we can only make that choice when it is presented to us... before the Start of the Game.

You are creating a rule that does not exist. The trait says three units get an ability, it does not say when I must decide which three. You have created an additional restriction that does not exist in the rules.

So, please either present the rule that states it must be done immediately, or present the rule that I am breaking by deciding during deployment.

I would actually agree that it is "3 units of your choice", and the Fortification is a Unit in your army from the moment you count the point cost. So it may get the "Infiltrate" special Rule at any time between being written down on your list and being placed on the table, infiltrated.

Coredump,
It is not enough to simply state that you have permission to do X, when you are attempting to do more then just X. Should the action being attempted is something akin to X but a little different, such as X+1, then the Rule being quoted for permission needs to specify doing X+1 is also as valid as X. To use this situation as an example, the action being attempted is not making the choice but delaying that choice till a later point in the time-line. For it to be a legal move the Rule granting the ability to make a choice would also need to address the ability to delay the choice, usually by providing us a window in which we can make that choice. Without such a window it can only be not be stated that permission to make the choice exists past the moment a choice is presented to us.

As the Rule itself mentions nothing about being allowed to delay that choice to another point in the timeline, permission to do exactly that has not been granted.

JinxDragon,

A "Unit" is loosely defined by the BRB as one or more models. Models are defined as "Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer." You're correct that the rules don't specify that things that take up a Force Org slot are units, but the exception tends to be when more than one unit is taken per Force Org slot. With that precedent, I think the burden is on you to show that Fortifications are not units.

As for delaying the choice of unit to grant infiltration, I get your argument, but what I don't understand is why the "X" form of the rule is an immediate choice rather than a "whenever you want."

 TehGonzalez wrote:
JinxDragon,

A "Unit" is loosely defined by the BRB as one or more models. Models are defined as "Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer." You're correct that the rules don't specify that things that take up a Force Org slot are units, but the exception tends to be when more than one unit is taken per Force Org slot. With that precedent, I think the burden is on you to show that Fortifications are not units.

Easy enough, terrain is normally not a unit because models must be organised into ‘units’ and something is not a model unless it has a unit type:

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’." (Models and Units chapter, Forming a Unit section 1st sentence).

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section." (Models and Units chapter, Other Important Information section 1st sentence).

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump,
It is not enough to simply state that you have permission to do X, when you are attempting to do more then just X.

I am given permission to give up to 3 units Infiltrate..... so I am *following* that rule. There is no further restriction detailing when that has to happen. You are creating that rule. If it said "before deployment" or if it said "immediately" or something similar, you would have a point. But it gives me permission to do exactly what I am doing.

As the Rule itself mentions nothing about being allowed to delay that choice to another point in the timeline, permission to do exactly that has not been granted.

As the Rule itself mentions nothing about being allowed to make that choice immediately, permission to do exactly that has not been granted.
I could just as easily make the claim that you *have* to do it during deployment, since there is no rule allowing you to do it immediately.


It works both ways.... the point is the rule says *nothing* about any time restrictions. It does not say to do immediately. it does not say you can't do it immediately. It does not say to do it during deployment, it does not say you can't do it during deployment. All it does is give permission to give 3 units infiltrate.... that is *all* it says. As long as you do that, you are following the rules.

You can take the warlord trait out of it, and still have the same question.
If I run Ravenguard, do my Fortification gain scout?
Models from this detachment gain scout.
Models with the bulky/very bulky rule do not gain scout.

Ergo, Ravenguard can scout their fortifications.

And scouting is no movement??

Naw wrote:
And scouting is no movement??

Correct. Scouting is Redeploying, not movement.

-Matt

CoreDump,
You are given permission to choose three units, show where in that also includes the ability to select 'I will choose later'
If you want to argue that any choice grants blanket permission to delay to a different point in time, unless the Rule states a specific timing, then I need a paragraph quote from the Rule book which supports this stance.
I could break so many Rules or exploit timing so well if that is the case....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As DeathReaper pointed out,
Terrain Pieces are not Models by the definition within the Rules, they lack certain details which are required before something can be called a Model. Buildings are a little bit in the Gray Area of the Rules thanks to the existence of many Rules informing us that they function like Vehicles, but nothing out-right states that this includes the Vehicle Unit Type. I would of liked if they had made a Unit Type Fortification/Building or just gave them Unit Type Vehicle, it would have been a very easy way to get the same result as the dozens of 'counts as' Rules we have instead. Without clear evidence that they have a Unit Type, any claim that they are Models is already on shaky ground.

That is why the timing the Terrain becomes a 'Unit for all rule Purposes' is quite important, Units consisting of Models and all.

DR keeps forgetting GW calls them 'citadel scenery models. all citadel scenery models have a terrain type.

infantry units have a unit type.
vehicles have a vehicle type.
terrain has terrain types.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. Regardless of what is on pg 2, the rules for buildings specifically and quite clearly label buildings as a unit.

claimed buildings are models & units.

and again: when determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.

as you pick 3 non vehicle units to infiltrate you can not use it on buildings.

sirlynchmob wrote:
DR keeps forgetting GW calls them 'citadel scenery models. all citadel scenery models have a terrain type.

infantry units have a unit type.
vehicles have a vehicle type.
terrain has terrain types.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. Regardless of what is on pg 2, the rules for buildings specifically and quite clearly label buildings as a unit.

claimed buildings are models & units.

and again: when determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.

as you pick 3 non vehicle units to infiltrate you can not use it on buildings.

It does not matter if GW calls them 'citadel scenery models.

Terrain does not have a unit type...

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
DR keeps forgetting GW calls them 'citadel scenery models. all citadel scenery models have a terrain type.

infantry units have a unit type.
vehicles have a vehicle type.
terrain has terrain types.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. Regardless of what is on pg 2, the rules for buildings specifically and quite clearly label buildings as a unit.

claimed buildings are models & units.

and again: when determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.

as you pick 3 non vehicle units to infiltrate you can not use it on buildings.

It does not matter if GW calls them 'citadel scenery models.

Terrain does not have a unit type...

It does matter, they are models and GW stressed that point many times in the rules.

a vehicle doesn't have a unit type, it has a vehicle type, are those models? if you extend vehicle type to equal unit type, then it's just as logical and RAW that terrain type = unit type.

But it is indisputable that:
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army.

No matter what you think, a claimed building is a unit. those are the rules and RAW.

Vehicle Rules are found in a section of the book called Unit Types, so it is difficult to state they are not Unit Types when they are formatted identical on a Profile and found in the same section as other Unit Types.
Being Claimed making them Units is the important part, agreed there, which is what makes the timing so vital.

JinxDragon wrote:
CoreDump,
You are given permission to choose three units, show where in that also includes the ability to select 'I will choose later'

Please show where in that also includes the ability to select "immediately"?

A rule only cares that you follow what it says. It does not have to give you explicit permission to cover all the possible ways you can follow that rule.

The rules say infantry can move 6". It does also say you could move 6" forward, and say you could move 6" to the left. No where are you give permission to move 3" forward and 3" to the left..... it does not have to. You have permission to move 6", as long as you do that, you are fine. (What about diagonal? Do the rules include the ability to move diagonally?)

You are looking for explicit permission for *how* to follow the rule... and that is folly. The only requirement is to follow the rule, which I am doing.... If you want me to follow an additional restriction, you have to supply that restriction.

Or in the next game, you may have to show where you are given permission to move 3" forward and 3" to the left....

JinxDragon wrote:
Vehicles are found in a section of the book called Unit Types...

they are only mentioned to say they are different and have their own section. are vehicles discussed in depth on pg 62? Nope.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. regardless of weather or not you accept it has a type, it is a unit.

the models that make up your army must be organized into units.
models must be in units
a claimed building is a unit
ergo a claimed building is a model

a claimed building is a citadel scenery model and is a unit.

Or are you guys saying buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker? Immune to focused witchfires? but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds; for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model, and in CC you allocate wounds to the closest model. That ought to help your all building army considerably

GW calls it a citadel scenery model, and they keep using the word model in 'do not include any citadel scenery model when awarding victory points. And it is a citadel miniature used to play games of warhammer and refereed to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Even if some deny they are models per RAW, it is abundantly clear they are models based on the many times the rules refer to them as models.

Coredump,
Your examples are way off tangent as I would have to point out multiple other Rules on how Movement, then another and another things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand I am sure, actually work. Should you be trying to pull that sort of argument on an actual table-top, I would spend the next hour explaining the finer points of Movement in the Rules. As it has nothing to do with you providing evidence to show that delaying a choice till a later moment is even intended, let alone Written supported, I would rather go back to that topic. It is the core of the debate, these Rules can't function if you do not delay the choice till after permission to treat the Building as a Unit has been granted. Right now it is clear that we have two simple sides on this debate, one that believes a choice has to be made when it is presented by the Rules and another that believes it can be made later unless the Rule states it must happen within a certain time frame.

Having failed prove Rule as Written support to convince me I will give you a chance to do so through logic by asking a simple question:
Have thought through on the conclusions your argument leads to, the sort of things you would have to defend to try and 'prove' this is even possible?
Mine has no wriggle room concerning the timing, so no 'creative' bending is possible and I have no problem with that.

Sirlynchmob,
You miss my point... Take a look at the very first page in this entire section and look at the name of it, not the top of the page but the whole page dedicated to the name. It is the section which details Unit Types, just like the next section titled in the same way begins to detail Terrain. So it isn't just Rules stating Vehicles are more extensive so are being explained in details elsewhere, which would be indication of a direct link more then evidence against anyway, but the fact those Rules are still found bound within a section telling us all about Unit Types. Character Rules, something also directly linked to Unit Types, can be found in this section of the book as well instead of the whole thing just being a Special Rule and explained elsewhere.

Claimed Buildings side-stepping of the problem is something I like, they simply are Units so they are Units!

sirlynchmob wrote:
It does matter, they are models and GW stressed that point many times in the rules.

Are you sure?

What is the buildings Unit type?

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section."

a vehicle doesn't have a unit type, it has a vehicle type, are those models?

Vehicles have a unit type...

if you extend vehicle type to equal unit type, then it's just as logical and RAW that terrain type = unit type.

I dont have to extend anything Vehicle is a unit type...

But it is indisputable that:
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army.

No matter what you think, a claimed building is a unit. those are the rules and RAW.

So what is the buildings unit type?

If it does not have one it is not a model/Unit.

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump,
Your examples are way off tangent as I would have to point out multiple other Rules on how Movement, then another and another things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand I am sure, actually work. Should you be trying to pull that sort of argument on an actual table-top, I would spend the next hour explaining the finer points of Movement in the Rules. As it has nothing to do with you providing evidence to show that delaying a choice till a later moment is even intended, let alone Written supported, I would rather go back to that topic. It is the core of the debate, these Rules can't function if you do not delay the choice till after permission to treat the Building as a Unit has been granted. Right now it is clear that we have two simple sides on this debate, one that believes a choice has to be made when it is presented by the Rules and another that believes it can be made later unless the Rule states it must happen within a certain time frame.

Having failed prove Rule as Written support to convince me I will give you a chance to do so through logic by asking a simple question:
Have thought through on the conclusions your argument leads to, the sort of things you would have to defend to try and 'prove' this is even possible?
Mine has no wriggle room concerning the timing, so no 'creative' bending is possible and I have no problem with that.

Sirlynchmob,
You miss my point... Take a look at the very first page in this entire section and look at the name of it, not the top of the page but the whole page dedicated to the name. It is the section which details Unit Types, just like the next section titled in the same way begins to detail Terrain. So it isn't just Rules stating Vehicles are more extensive so are being explained in details elsewhere, which would be indication of a direct link more then evidence against anyway, but the fact those Rules are still found bound within a section telling us all about Unit Types. Character Rules, something also directly linked to Unit Types, can be found in this section of the book as well instead of the whole thing just being a Special Rule and explained elsewhere.

Claimed Buildings side-stepping of the problem is something I like, they simply are Units so they are Units!

I get what you're saying, but this trying to exclude buildings from using the word model has always just been plain nonsense. shall we look at all the usages of model on pg 8 & 9

the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models. are buildings citadel miniatures? yep

warhammer uses 9 different characteristics to describe the various attributes of different models.
infantry has 9 characteristics, vehicles & buildings don't, but just vehicles are given a pass by the non model side.
If you don't have 9 characteristics you are not a model right?

in addition to its characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type such as infantry or MC discussed in more depth on pg 62
does a vehicles & buildings have a unit type such as infantry or MC? no, but just vehicles are given a pass by the non model side.

models & base sized, the rules in this book assume that the models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with.
do vehicles & buildings have a base? no, but just vehicles are given a pass by the non model side.

Not being a model creates quite a few problems:
buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker. Immune to focused witchfires. but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds, for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model, and in CC you allocate wounds to the closest model. Can you even shoot at them, do buildings have hulls & turrets? nope. in CC what is the rear armor of a building? And many more.

In vehicles we see they have a vehicle profile, not a characteristics profile which each model should have. And they just have a type, not unit type as pg 62 discusses. but as just having a type is good enough for vehicles to be called models, which they are, but then so are buildings.

All terrain has types.
all of the citadel scenery models have a terrain type. it's right there on pg 108, the specific use of the word model to refer to terrain. selective reading of pg 8 and 9 to try and label buildings as non models is illogical and creates other huge rules problems. Unless you think they should be immune to blast, forcused witchfires and never have wounds allocated to them.

does all terrain have profiles? no, but buildings do. so buildings have a profile and type, and are called models at least twice in the rules. I don't know what book DR is reading but, claimed buildings are units despite his claim otherwise.

and do we not treat buildings as vehicles? yes we surely do. when determining if a building can be targeted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat, or affected by a special rule (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. If nothing else, you say vehicles are models, buildings are treated as vehicles, ergo buildings are treated as models.

the timing of the choice for master of ambush is irrelevant, your warlord and 3 non vehicle units have interceptor. The buildings in your army are units and vehicle units when affected by a special rule. So no master of ambush, but you can scout with them.

So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

 Nem wrote:
So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

Except for the fact that a unit that Infiltrates cannot charge their first turn.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:
So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

Except for the fact that a unit that Infiltrates cannot charge their first turn.

Ah forgot that, didn't they change if further to be -the- first turn also.

 Nem wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:
So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

Except for the fact that a unit that Infiltrates cannot charge their first turn.

Ah forgot that, didn't they change if further to be -the- first turn also.

It used to be you could not charge the first (player) turn. Meaning if you Infiltrated and went second, you could charge in your Turn 1.. Now you cannot charge in Game Turn 1.

Sirlynchmob,
I understand the desire to turn them into Models, as it can make some of the more common Rules used against Buildings to function a little more smoothly, but a desire to make things easier is not enough to suggest Authors Intent let alone something to over-turn Written Rules. I even have serious doubts as if it was the Authors intention for Terrain to be treated as if they where Models all the time, as I can envision Rule interactions that could be created if Terrain is considered to be a Model by Default. It would be entirely possible to avoid these undesired interactions by refraining from making Terrain into Models by default, and instead rely on a bunch of 'counts as' Rules to grant permission to resolve situation X or situation Y as if the Building was a Model.

Given the amount of 'count's as Vehicle' Rules contained in the Building section, all designed to give us a permission to resolve situations where Buildings are required to be Models....

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob,
I understand the desire to turn them into Models, as it can make some of the more common Rules used against Buildings to function a little more smoothly, but a desire to make things easier is not enough to suggest Authors Intent let alone something to over-turn Written Rules. I even have serious doubts as if it was the Authors intention for Terrain to be treated as if they where Models all the time, as I can envision Rule interactions that could be created if Terrain is considered to be a Model by Default. It would be entirely possible to avoid these undesired interactions by refraining from making Terrain into Models by default, and instead rely on a bunch of 'counts as' Rules to grant permission to resolve situation X or situation Y as if the Building was a Model.

Given the amount of 'count's as Vehicle' Rules contained in the Building section, all designed to give us a permission to resolve situations where Buildings are required to be Models....

It's not a desire of mine to turn them into models, the authors labeled terrain as 'citadel scenery models' and again use 'citadel scenery models' when talking about victory points, and the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models. Also under terrain datasheets 'if a citadel scenery model can be taken as part of an army, then a point value for the model will be listed here. OMG they called fortification a model twice in the same sentence, and used the word model 14 times when talking about terrain datasheets.

It's like they're trying to make a point about something.

Just like claimed buildings can be a unit without meeting all the criteria some put on it, terrain was proclaimed a model and refereed to as models, despite not meeting all the criteria some put on it

Yes they called it a model, but that does not make it a model as per the definition in the 40k Rules.

Considering that the word model has multiple uses within the English language, the simple presence of it in a paragraph is not enough evidence to the Authors intention. For that stance to be correct, it would require us to accept that all casual misuse of the terminology means that any Rule singling out Model or Units can also be applied to the subject matter in question. Given that there are a great deal of things referred to as models, by the general English use of the word, it would take more time then I am willing to invest to document all the broken scenarios that stance leads to. Almost like the Authors never intended for everything that could be referred to as a model to trigger Model related Rules, only things which meet the definition of Model set forth by the Rules themselves.

It also fails to explain why the Authors penned so many 'count's as' Rules, designed to allow Buildings to resolve scenarios that center around models, if they intended for Buildings to already be Models as per the Rules...
Including a Rule which grants Unit status to Claimed Buildings, as if they lacked access to something every Model has....

PS:
It is also why I have gotten into the habit of having a capitalized letter when referring to something like a Model or a Rule, to differentiation between the general use of the word and the books definition of a word.

Except Model is defined in the 40K ruleset, so the real world definition of it is not valid for that purpose.

That's the thing though, there is no rule defined meaning of model beyond 'the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models in the rules that follow'. Nor any hint that they implied or intended to use both meanings of model in the rules. that is a false dichotomy you guys are creating.

look at this sentence:
'if a citadel scenery model can be taken as part of an army, then a point value for the model will be listed here

you took a model as part of your army, It is a model, to deny it model status you need a rule to expressly say it is no longer considered a model.

it is a model, and it is a model in the rules that follows and nothing ever revokes model status, nor even hit that it is RAW to do so.

deployment pg 132:
Models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone, so if buildings are not models they can be placed anywhere on the table? If you say they must be deployed in your deployment zone, then what are you basing it on? And furthermore could you even deploy a non model during your deployment?

scenery upgrades, or set up as a separate model within 6" Even the upgrades are labeled as models.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps everywhere you find model used in the brb it is 'model' no caps.

sirlynchmob wrote:
That's the thing though, there is no rule defined meaning of model beyond 'the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models in the rules that follow'.

Yes there is.

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (Models and Units Chapter, Characteristic Profiles section).

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section." (Models and Units Chapter, Other Important Information section).

For something to be a model it needs two things, a "profile that lists the values of its characteristics." and "a unit type"

Nor any hint that they implied or intended to use both meanings of model in the rules. that is a false dichotomy you guys are creating.

Not creating anything, they tell you how to identify a model in the 40K ruleset.

look at this sentence:
'if a citadel scenery model can be taken as part of an army, then a point value for the model will be listed here

you took a model as part of your army, It is a model, to deny it model status you need a rule to expressly say it is no longer considered a model.

it is a model, and it is a model in the rules that follows and nothing ever revokes model status, nor even hit that it is RAW to do so.

It is not a model as it does not have a unit type. the RAW tells us that "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type"

deployment pg 132:
Models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone, so if buildings are not models they can be placed anywhere on the table? If you say they must be deployed in your deployment zone, then what are you basing it on? And furthermore could you even deploy a non model during your deployment?

scenery upgrades, or set up as a separate model within 6" Even the upgrades are labeled as models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps everywhere you find model used in the brb it is 'model' no caps.

Again, no unit type, it it not a defined 40K model. However buildings have a special provision to be treated as a model when deploying, so they must be in your deployment zone.

Curious that you would state no defined meaning of Mode beyond The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow... given that the very next sentence informs us that Models represent a variety of troops. The third sentence in that paragraph, as we still are in the same block of text that started with The Citadel miniatures... states that each Model has its own characteristic profile. Given that this information is in one paragraph, clearly defining things a Model must possess, it is very difficult to see you claiming that no such things exist as if you didn't even read past a single sentence. The only logical conclusion the entirety of the text creates is that such definitions do exist, and if something fails to meet that definition then it has to be something else. Should this conclusion be incorrect, all it would take is a Rule quote stating that things without these qualities are also models regardless.

If Citadel Scenery Models are Models instead of being models representing terrain, then anything which applies to Models applies to all terrain from the hole in the ground right through to Buildings as well. While I am not going to hunt down Rules that throw Models around or cause other things to occur, I will point out that the reason the vast majority of Rules don't work is because the lack of a Profile that prevents interaction. Even simple Blast Marker Special Rule now applies to terrain and simply has no method in which to resolve the Hits generated because they can only apply to things with a Profile. Those minor conflicts, which analog thinkers would easily put out of their mind by ignoring them completely, make the definition put in the start of the book even more vital to understanding how Rules simply function. Rules are simply far more structured then the English language ever will be.

It highlights once more the need for 'Count As' clauses, designed to allow even basic Rules to function when resolved against Terrain that should be treated like Models.
By the way, such a clause exists for Fortifications and it forces them to deploy using the Deployment rules that the other models have to use.
That wouldn't have to exist if Buildings, and in this case Fortifications that include non-Building models, where already Models....

PS:
The capital letter thing is something I try and do, the Authors use of duel terminology is bad enough without trying to make it a larger puzzle to understand my rantings.

*edit* directed towards DR but also answers jink.

They tell you how to identify a infantry model, even the vehicle characteristics refer to those rules applying to flesh & blood creatures. Not all models. and like OII tells us, don't worry about it, because it's obviously not important.

Why do you cling to just the unit types and ignore that 40k uses 9 different characteristics to describe models. (second paragraph) vehicles don't have 9, so they must not be models either right?

we see under vehicles 'they do not fight in the same manner of other models' implying they are models just like fortifications use the same rules as other models. implying they are also models.

it's a model and deploys like other models.

What type of shenanigans are you trying to pull by calling them non models? You can't even admit claimed buildings are units as seen here:

me:

But it is indisputable that:
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army.
No matter what you think, a claimed building is a unit. those are the rules and RAW.

DR:

so what is the buildings unit type? If it does not have one it is not a model/Unit.

How many times must they be referred to as models before you can accept them for the models they are? As you are demonstrably wrong about claimed buildings being units, I can safely assume you are equally wrong about the status of model you are trying to impose.

Sirlynchmob,
I have to run out so I will simply state:
Advanced vs Basic

There is a Rule in the Unit Type section which specifically states that the default profile is replaced with the following, in the case of Vehicles, so it is not a good comparison...
Unless you can find something identical for Terrain?

Or even just a Unit Type for terrain.

@jink I wish you would state some examples of models not working. That would do more for me to rethink my position than the parroting of 'unit type.' If it's just a lack of profile, well buildings have a profile, along with some natural scenery, building upgrades, and battlefield debris.

because either being a model or counting as a model should get the exact same results. Unless someone has something dodgy in mind.

The poster whom said that a building is treated as a vehicle for the purpose of special rules is correct. No infiltrating fortifications. Thanks for clarifying. The rest of you guys seam to be making some stupid argument revolving around semantics, please stop.

That is normal for this site, academical arguments will form from the simplest of questions.

Sirlynchmob,
The real concern I have over all of this has been the complete lack of regard to why all the Count As Rules would even exist if you are correct. Many times I bring that up because that is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Rules where required to access certain basic Rules and to allow other Rules to function in the correct method. That they are focused on Buildings in particular, though other pieces which are destroyed like models also have their own similar clauses, is very telling as those are all the models which we all want to function as Models. Those Count As clauses ensure that specific terrain piece function as if they are Units, some literally granting that right to Buildings. All that work was done well enough by the Authors that it makes an end result so well done that you claim them to be Units all along, then completely ignore that the Rules themselves can't be removed without all those problems returning.

So let us start simple to answer your request:
My models can not see any of your Models behind a Defense Line that you purchased as a Fortification.
I can draw Line of sight the last Citadel Scenery Model that makes up that Defense Line.
I launch a devastating large Blast marker at that, hell let us make it D weapon cause I decided to swing big on this example.
Your Warlord is killed, with him the back bone of a strike that would be needed against that weapon....

Legal Win or not?

JinxDragon wrote:
That is normal for this site, academical arguments will form from the simplest of questions.

Sirlynchmob,
The real concern I have over all of this has been the complete lack of regard to why all the Count As Rules would even exist if you are correct. Many times I bring that up because that is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Rules where required to access certain basic Rules and to allow other Rules to function in the correct method. That they are focused on Buildings in particular, though other pieces which are destroyed like models also have their own similar clauses, is very telling as those are all the models which we all want to function as Models. Those Count As clauses ensure that specific terrain piece function as if they are Units, some literally granting that right to Buildings. All that work was done well enough by the Authors that it makes an end result so well done that you claim them to be Units all along, then completely ignore that the Rules themselves can't be removed without all those problems returning.

So let us start simple to answer your request:
My models can not see any of your Models behind a Defense Line that you purchased as a Fortification.
I can draw Line of sight the last Citadel Scenery Model that makes up that Defense Line.
I launch a devastating large Blast marker at that, hell let us make it D weapon cause I decided to swing big on this example.
Your Warlord is killed, with him the back bone of a strike that would be needed against that weapon....

Legal Win or not?

Legal win

We see from claimed buildings, they are indisputidly units. ADL's are also fortifications and can be included in your army. During deployment, it is a part of your army and they set up with the rest of your units, using the same rule as other models. Note 'other models' and 'rest of your models' It is a model and there are other models, if they weren't already models, you wouldn't need the word 'other' and could just state 'using the same rules for models'. The rest of your units, so it is a unit and deployed with the rest of them.

pg 14 all models on the same side are friendly models, opponents are enemies. the adl is in your army and as a model it can be friendly/enemy, thus the ADL is a friendly unit and can be shot at. Good kill. And if a building isn't first a model, then how can it be frienly or enemy? If it's not first an enemy model than how could it be an enemy unit? Because the only place we are given permission to use friendly/enemy is based on models.

Is a ADL a model? yes, what type does it have? battlefield debris (defnese line) Just because it can't be pidgeoned holed into conforming to infantry models, does not mean it's not a model.

terrain can also be neutral, and if not a model then it must be neutral. without being a model a building or quad gun while a unit in your army is a neutral unit in your army, and thus can not be shot at nor assaulted. model in your army then it is friendly to you and a enemy to your opponent and as such can be a legal target to be shot at, otherwise it can't be an enemy unit and thus unable to be choosen as a target. It also prevents you from shooting your gun emplacement and all the shenanagins that went along with it.

Plus as an added note as buildings are friendly/enemy units, enemy models trying to embark into it must stay one inch away from it while trying to get within 2 inches of the access point.

In the end it boils down to, (A)do you want quad guns & buildings that are immune to all shotting attacks & assaults and that can never die, but probably severly house ruled to treat them as models anyways to prevent this, and so they function identically to models anyways, or (B)treating them like the models they are labeled as.

I'll always choose B as it is RAW and doesn't break every in the shooting phase, every rule in the assault phase, and many other rules.

buildings do not have many counts as rules though. just that they use aspects of the transport vehicle rules, and are treated as vehicles in all circumstances. the only difference between vehices & buildings are the chart you roll on, and they switch sides. IMO GW is just trying to be as clear as possible and take terrain from strictly scenery into scenery units in your army. It seems they're trying to build a narrative of sweeping through a urban city and buildings fall into enemy hands while not upsetting to many customers


the only places I can find where being a model or not could make a difference is with focused witchfires, templates and blast weapons. Since we're on the ADL lets again mention the gun emplacement, We are told they can be shot & assaulted, but they didn't tell us what to count it as. if it's not a model, and it doesn't say to count it as a model, then:
Is it your conclusion that buildings, quad guns, and other non models are immune to blasts, templates and focused witchfires? Then there's the problem with you allocate wounds to models, models make saves, and when models are reduced to 0 wounds they are removed as a casualty.

Stay tuned for the song and dance about even though you are told to 'choose an enemy unit' in the shooting phase and 'nominate the enemy unit' in the assault phase, while claiming you can still shoot at & assault the quad gun and buildings. They'll treat them like models in all regards yet still claim they are not models for some reason not stated.

If the bases of the non-model side is to prevent walls from being shot in the first place, then that is easily house ruled, without the song and dance. If that is the only cringe worthy aspect of how I presented RAW for fortifications, then I'd agree to one house rule to not shoot walls or to better fill the narrative, let's give them an AV and hull points..

JinxDragon wrote:
That is normal for this site, academical arguments will form from the simplest of questions.

Sirlynchmob,
The real concern I have over all of this has been the complete lack of regard to why all the Count As Rules would even exist if you are correct. Many times I bring that up because that is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Rules where required to access certain basic Rules and to allow other Rules to function in the correct method. That they are focused on Buildings in particular, though other pieces which are destroyed like models also have their own similar clauses, is very telling as those are all the models which we all want to function as Models. Those Count As clauses ensure that specific terrain piece function as if they are Units, some literally granting that right to Buildings. All that work was done well enough by the Authors that it makes an end result so well done that you claim them to be Units all along, then completely ignore that the Rules themselves can't be removed without all those problems returning.

So let us start simple to answer your request:
My models can not see any of your Models behind a Defense Line that you purchased as a Fortification.
I can draw Line of sight the last Citadel Scenery Model that makes up that Defense Line.
I launch a devastating large Blast marker at that, hell let us make it D weapon cause I decided to swing big on this example.
Your Warlord is killed, with him the back bone of a strike that would be needed against that weapon....

Legal Win or not?

Not legal.

Blast markers still follow the Out of Sight rules, so the wound pool empties once there are no more models in Line of Sight.

I assumed he meant a barrage blast marker.

DeathReaper,
Consider it to have scattered an inch or barrage, if that makes it better fit the scenario.

Sirlynchmob,
At least you are not being hypocritical though I am curious:
If the Defense Line was placed as just Terrain, does your answer change even though the scenario is identical in every other way?

I will have to point out that the choice you presented is nothing but a straw-man argument, and as such I can not take anything spawned from it seriously. The choice was clearly designed to create the illusion that one side creates all sorts of problems before claiming your own must be correct. Unfortunately for your straw-man, the main body of evidence put forth as to why Buildings are not Models already covers what occurs within those situations. The pages and pages of additional Rules created for these 'Model-like' terrain pieces are more advanced instructions, existing for the sole purpose of giving permission to for these non-Models to access the Shooting or Assault Sequences....

The existence of these Rules has always been a core piece of evidence as to why Buildings are not Models, and I have never received an answer to this question though I ask it a lot:
If the Authors intended for Buildings to already be Models, then why create pages and pages of additional Rules to reach the very same outcome?

JinxDragon wrote:

Sirlynchmob,
At least you are not being hypocritical though I am curious:
If the Defense Line was placed as just Terrain, does your answer change even though the scenario is identical in every other way?

I will have to point out that the choice you presented is nothing but a straw-man argument, and as such I can not take anything spawned from it seriously. The choice was clearly designed make it appear as if the alternative view to your own was designed to create broken scenarios, and therefore your view-point has to be correct by not creating these scenarios. Unfortunately for your straw-man, the main body of evidence put forth as to why Buildings are not Models already covers what actually occurs within those situations. The pages and pages of additional Rules created for these 'Model-like' terrain pieces are more advanced instructions, existing for the sole purpose of giving permission to for these non-Models to access the Shooting or Assault Sequences....

The existence of these Rules has always been a core piece of evidence as to why Buildings are not Models, and I have never received an answer to this question though I ask it a lot:
If the Authors intended for Buildings to already be Models, then why create pages and pages of additional Rules to reach the very same outcome?

Yes the answer changes as it was not bought as your army, then it is just a neutral scenery piece and can not be deliberately shot. And if you scatter onto it, it doesn't cause anything to happen.

it's not pages & pages, it's 3 pages and some pictures for all terrain.

It's not a strawman though, you can't dismiss everything I posted by saying strawman. take some time and think about the questions I ask. take the quad gun emplacement for instance. If it's not a model, and you are just told you can shoot it, what rules do you follow? If a blast marker is over it, how many models are under the marker. The quad gun does not have any count as rules associated with it. Blasts hit models under the marker, is a building a model when being treated as a vehicle? so if a blast marker is over a building does anything happen? and why?

If you are told to choose an enemy unit to target, and your choices are between an enemy ork mob and a gun emplacement, which ones are legal targets and why.

and any answer to your question about why the authors wrote the rules as they did is purely speculation. it's probably just an outdated paradigm of 'infantry, vehicles and terrain' so they keep writing to that narrative even though the lines between them are almost gone.

Again, nice to see your not being hypocritical with the answers but I need to ask:
Ignoring the Rules behind it all for the time being, do you honestly believe that a Unit should be immune based solely on how the wall they are hiding behind came to be placed on the field?
That purchasing the Unit, as in having spent points, should make it less protection then something placed for free?

As for it not being a Straw-man, given the definition of what a Straw-man is in an argument I have to disagree. A Straw-man requires the opponents argument to be modified, recreated or redefined in such a way that it is either easier to argue against it, or the modified conclusion is weaker to support. To make it a true Straw-man it would then have to be followed by a statement that your own viewpoint is therefore correct, as it is not affected by the problems found within the re-definition. As you have put forth that the alternative point of view exists to make Buildings invincible, something never stated by the opposition, and then stated your view is correct because it doesn't cause that outcome... classic Straw-man.

It isn't any questions concerning 'Count As' that are a Straw-Man, it was how you misstated the opposing viewpoint then formulated your 'counter' against the new stance all before you even asked said opposition to clarify how their viewpoint functions within such a scenario....

In order to entertain you further, because it is a problem with non-models in 6th Edition and I want to see if it was re-created in 7th, I will review the Count As scenarios a little closer when I have the book in front of me. My memory issues do not include 'perfect recall of every Rule read' and I like to refresh before I make any serious post on what those Rules contain. I do feel at this time we should ignore Buildings entirely, the fact they have both a statement that they are simply Units and have a good deal of 'Count As' Rules it would be impossible for you to prove the point you are trying to make. The Rules we highlight as needed in order to get around the non-Model status would be doing their job if they make it that difficult to determine if their presence is causing the outcome or not.

Before I do return to "work" I have a follow up question, as the concept that they are just vestigial Rules begs further exploration:
Why where these Rules originally required?
Why is it no longer an issue that has to be addressed?

In previous Editions the Authors also called the Terrain pieces models, by the general use of English, so for these rules to be vestigial they will need to address a clear 'are not Models' clause....

it's hard to counter an argument that is never made though. I've asked previously in this thread and many times in others why stick to the 'non model' argument and where does it lead. starting on pg 2 I asked:

"Or are you guys saying buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker? Immune to focused witchfires? but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds; for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model, and in CC you allocate wounds to the closest model. That ought to help your all building army considerably"

No answer was ever given.

I mention it again on pg 2:

"Not being a model creates quite a few problems:
buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker. Immune to focused witchfires. but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds, for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model,"

No answer or statement to the contrary was ever given.

None of my questions, have been answered. Please by all means clarify your position and answer my questions.

I would think the continued and specific use of 'citadel scenery models' (it's even in bold print) would seem a clear indication of what the authors intend. I never understood the non model side, nor what they were trying to achieve with it. I don't believe there is such a thing as a non model in 40k. I never played 1-4 and only started at the end of 5th so I can't speak to how the rules were originally. I think the problem started with the game being a 2D game pretending to be a 3D game. Because that is how it felt in 5th. Hence the focus on bases, and terrain rules that never really seem to fit into the game. In 6th if I remember right there were only 2 spots in which terrain was referred to as models, and the gun emplacement had the word model removed for stronghold assault. But now you can't read the terrain rules without a vast and widespread use of the word.

walls & buildings have always worked oddly and against real world applications. in 6th you couldn't ram buildings, now you can. Armies have all sorts of armor piercing weapons that get blocked by walls and barbed wire, without nary the scratch to them. or bombing ruins without the ruins collapsing further. When you ram a unit behind a wall, you'd think the wall would get destroyed as well. The difference between the fortification ADL and a non-fortification ADL, just more clumsy rules from GW. Like how they failed to clarify the psychic phase and really seem to have made a bigger mess of it, terrain always feels like an after thought.

If you don't want to start with buildings, shall we start by discussing the gun emplacements then? As they seem to be a middle ground citadel scenery model.

I did overlook those questions but I do plead the context of your post, one talking about Claimed Buildings and the other an argument that Vehicles are not a Unit Type, as the reason why they where not answered. I was busy focusing on addressing the core of those posts, for the Claimed Building I answered in favor because of all those Count As Rules and for the Unit Type I pointed out many reasons why Vehicles are Unit Types. I could even state that the questions, in context of Buildings of the Claimed type, where answered by the replies I made to all of the post instead of specific questions within.

So simple answer:
All those Count As Rules for Buildings, that you keep stating don't need to exist, make it possible for Buildings to function like Models that it doesn't matter the difference.

It is also why I keep asking to stay away from Buildings, for your own sake, as Those Count As Rules weaken your position greatly. The problems you keep claiming exist are addressed by those Rules, which makes it more likely those Rules exist in order to address those problems and that makes it more likely for there to be something that needs to be addressed. The Gun Encampment gives you one chance but not because it disproves the concept, but because it is so very poorly written. The Rule is simply 'can be shot at...' which doesn't detail to us how we go about resolving the Shooting Sequence against them. It makes it so widely possible interpretations do exist, with access to the whole Sequence being just as possible as the concept that only the basics would be and any Special Rule which singles out models are not effective. That is what makes it a curiosity, it doesn't prove or disprove anything but there is a rich ground for an argument if you are willing to accept that we are discussing fundamentals on how Rules can function more then Written Rules themselves.

However I noticed you went back to Citadel Scenery model and I want to ask you something about that:
Have you noticed how Game workshop, I and yourself single out all these Terrain pieces by calling them Citadel Scenery Models?

We are not calling them Scenery Models or Terrain, though I have done that a few times, but using the entire proper name of Citadel Scenery Models. The use of the first word there is very telling to what the name is referring to, as the company which produces official Game Workshop models matches. This company sells a line of products called simply 'Scenery' and the first paragraph in the Terrain section directly relates to this branch of the model selling company. The context and English use of these words supports the concept that Citadel Scenery Models is self promotion, just like Citadel was mentioned in relation to Warhammer 40k Models back at the start. You continue to repeat that it makes it clear that they intended for these to be models, but they sell a wide range of products which can be called models and have nothing to do with Model as defined in the Rules so it seems irrelevant to me.

So I decided to flick through the number of times model stands out in the Terrain section of the book. Even including Building Rules, which have Count As clauses, I only found four noticeable mentions. Two contained the word Scenery before the word Model, but lacked mention of Citadel, while the other two where for multiple part buildings and one was a 'Count As separate models' Rule. While it is the only other thing you have, it is the exact same 'evidence' that was presented in 6th edition and doesn't carry enough weight to prove intent in face of the Rules.

Now I don't usually bring up the bad writing of Game Workshop, it is why these forums exist because it is that bad, but I want to ponder on something:
Given that you are willing to explain away some inconsistencies as bad Rule Writing, why is it not possible that the use of the word model is the error?
I also wonder just what the possible intention of 'may be Shot at' would mean for resolving shots if the use of the word model is meant to be so clear....





Goddess, are the Rules so 2 dimensional...!

JinxDragon wrote:
The context and English use of these words supports the concept that Citadel Scenery Models is self promotion, just like Citadel was mentioned in relation to Warhammer 40k Models back at the start. You continue to repeat that it makes it clear that they intended for these to be models, but they sell a wide range of products which can be called models and have nothing to do with Model as defined in the Rules so it seems irrelevant to me.

So simple answer:
All those Count As Rules for Buildings, that you keep stating don't need to exist, make it possible for Buildings to function like Models that it doesn't matter the difference.

this is the crux of the disagreement though, you say there are two usages of the word model in the rules, dictionary and rules. That is never actually defined nor stated in the rules, nor would we know which usage is intended when we see the word. it is just as likely as the use of the word model is not in error to allow for blast weapons & focused witchfires to function as intended, blasts could very well only be looking for dictionary models and not rule models.

for those count as rules, it's really just 1 for buildings, they count as vehicles, we are never told they count as models. so claiming they function like models but are not models is illogical. If they are explaining in the building rules how they function like models, then it should be easy to show where and when buildings count as models, what happens when a blast marker is over a building and looking for models. We agree vehicles are models, then when you look underneath the blast marker you see a model, yet if a building is under the marker, if it's not a model, how is it hit? They had a rule in stronghold assault that addressed it, but those rules were asked to be ignored for 7th. would you say it's because buildings are models and that rule was longer needed? I would.

The use of the word model may be unclear, when you go to choose a target or nominate a unit to assault, it must be an enemy unit. but again what is needed to determine if something is enemy or friendly? as I showed in my wall of text it is based on models, without first being a models they can not be friendly or enemy models nor units. This is really another core question that needs to be answered, if a gun emplacement is neither a model, nor unit, how can it be a enemy unit and eligible to be shot when choosing a target? The rule would have to be "maybe shot as a enemy unit" to override the choose a target procedure, unless it was already a model & friendly/enemy unit, then stating it may be shoot is really just a reminder. As you need to pick a enemy unit to shoot if you agree that a gun emplacement can be shot, you are agreeing that is is a enemy unit.

Have you noticed under terrain type that 'citadel scenery model' is in bold? Because as pg 4 tells us, it is highlighting because it's the most important elements of the rule in question. I didn't explain away inconsistent rules as bad writing, I accept they have poorly worded rules that need to be looked at in the greater context of the rule book as a whole. Then when figuring out the meaning, try to break as few other rules as possible and go with the conclusion that breaks the least.

Goddess, are the Rules so 2 dimensional...!

are you mocking me or agreeing with me? It's hard to tell so I'll assume you agree.

If it is so certain that buildings, gun emplacements and other scenery models are not models then why not just state RAW blasts don't affect them because they don't see any models under the marker? Why not just state focused witchfire don't affect them as there is no model in the unit to affect? Why state blasts are looking for rule models when it's just as likely they're looking for dictionary models? One thing is perfectly clear though citadel scenery models are models.

Getting tired of going around in a circle, as we have provided where the definition is located many times. Our view on if something is considered to be a Model it must have the things we are informed Models will have, and the lack of those features means whatever we are looking is not a model as defined by the Rules, regardless of what it is named. When you get down to it, the lack of those features also cause problems within the Rules as we would now have to resolve Shots against things which can not be Wounded. While it is a great House Rule to state things without the characteristic can not be effected, it is one I have seen pushed for a few other problems in other areas, the Rules don't allow us to ignore such things. For a Defence Line to be a model it would need to have a Profile so we can Resolve the Shots against it we clearly have under your interpretation.

I'm just going to short hand the rest:

Buildings and Blast Markers:
We are informed that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type
Buildings have a Profile and a Terrain Type, making them non-Model models
By Counting as Vehicles, Transport in particular, they now have a Unit Type
At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

Gun Emplacements and Blast Markers:
Permission to shoot at a Gun Emplacement has been granted, so permission to use the Shooting Sequence has been granted
Therefore, for the purpose of a shooting sequence when evoking this rule, every reference to model also refers to the Gun Emplacement
Resolving Blast Markers is still part of the sequence, as it modifies the To Hit section
Gun Emplacements therefore function with these Rules, as permission to resolve the shot has been granted

The 2 dimensional thing:
I was agreeing.

JinxDragon wrote:


Buildings and Blast Markers:
We are informed that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type
Buildings have a Profile and a Terrain Type, making them non-Model models
By Counting as Vehicles, Transport in particular, they now have a Unit Type
At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

Gun Emplacements and Blast Markers:
Permission to shoot at a Gun Emplacement has been granted, so permission to use the Shooting Sequence has been granted
Therefore, for the purpose of a shooting sequence when evoking this rule, every reference to model also refers to the Gun Emplacement
Resolving Blast Markers is still part of the sequence, as it modifies the To Hit section
Gun Emplacements therefore function with these Rules, as permission to resolve the shot has been granted

This is where you veer away from RAW and make your leap of faith, Why claim they are not models, just to turn around and treat them as models.

I understand the definition you use for model, you also admit they use the dictionary use of the word throughout the rules. Yet we are given no way of determining how the word is being used. ie blast markers, are they looking for rule models, or dictionary models? and how would you know which one is intended?

you also skipped step 2 of the shooting sequence, pick an enemy unit. so if permission to shoot at the gun emplacement allows it to reference model, it would also have to equate enemy unit to it. Which is odd when you claim they're not models, yet would allow a blast marker that scatters onto them to hit them? You're treating them like a model and choosing to shoot them like any other enemy unit.

If RAW is they are not models, then why allow things that only affect models to affect them?

So simple answer:
All those Count As Rules for Buildings, that you keep stating don't need to exist, make it possible for Buildings to function like Models that it doesn't matter the difference.

This question I'd really like an answer to: In relation to buildings, is there any rule when being a model or not makes a difference? Even if you're just counting them as models.

If it doesn't matter, why keep bringing up the non model status when you treat them as models anyways? Is it just for things like the ADL, or is there some other loop hole I'm not aware of where keeping them as non models is the keystone of the loophole? Because when anyone mentions models in connection to buildings it's always brought up that no 'they are not models' without even a 'but we treat them like one' or any explanation as to why it matters, the remark usually has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I think that is either a left over reaction from an edition where it mattered, or some people are up to something shady. In 6th it was mostly used to keep blessings off from buildings, but now that's RAW.

I am still very curious about where this leap of faith comes from:
Is it because we "assume" that Gun Emplacements being shot at means that we have permission to resolve a Shooting Sequence against them?
It can't be because we Treat Non-Models as if they where Models whenever we encounter one of those 'Count As' Rules that tell us that X is Y, unless you really want to once more go over why count as or treat as Rule even exist. That is something you keep asking at the core of your questions, why we don't just simply call them Models if the rules tell us to treat them as models, and I have tried to answer but it is fast becoming a lost cause. The very fact we need Rules telling us to count X as Y is because X is not Y by default, only in situations where it has access to Count As or Treat As Rules....

So I will go on the offensive then, seeing answering your questions does not change your mind, it just makes you believe you need to word the question in a different way:

Assuming that Citadel Scenery are Models for all Rule purposes consider the following situations:
A player has purchased a Gun Emplacement as part of a Defense Line, taking up a single Force Organization Slot on a Combined Arms Detachment
That Gun Emplacement is laid out so the Gun is encircled by walls, giving protection from all directions
The Enemy decides to take out the gun, generating no less then 5 Wounds
As the Models purchased for a single List Entry, they all are part of a single Unit and Wounds must be allocated to the closest Model first
That Model is a wall section, and as it lacks a profile the Wounds are unable to be resolved against it....
Will the Gun ever get Destroyed?

Each Building has the option of purchasing upgrades, such as barricades and barbed wire
These pieces are represented by Citadel Scenery Models which are deployed alongside but separate to the Building they where purchased for
A Unit is in Melta range to one such barricade, but not to the Building itself
Does benefit from Melta or not?

the leap of faith is where you state that building now have the unit type transport. There are no rules to support that.

As DeathReaper pointed out,
Terrain Pieces are not Models by the definition within the Rules, they lack certain details which are required before something can be called a Model. Buildings are a little bit in the Gray Area of the Rules thanks to the existence of many Rules informing us that they function like Vehicles, but nothing out-right states that this includes the Vehicle Unit Type. I would of liked if they had made a Unit Type Fortification/Building or just gave them Unit Type Vehicle, it would have been a very easy way to get the same result as the dozens of 'counts as' Rules we have instead. Without clear evidence that they have a Unit Type, any claim that they are Models is already on shaky ground.

Let's see what you said previously, why state that claiming they are models is on shakey ground, when you turn around and make that exact claim?

Buildings and Blast Markers:
We are informed that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type
Buildings have a Profile and a Terrain Type, making them non-Model models
By Counting as Vehicles, Transport in particular, they now have a Unit Type
At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

I see you attack them as a vehicle and for all other rules interactions with them you treat them as a vehicle, I see no mention of attacking them as if they were a transport vehicle.

This is what really bugs me about this 'non model' argent. you state that claiming they are models is on shaky ground, while you treat them as models and grant them a unit type to make them a model. Shouldn't the reply to those who state RAW: buildings are models be: while I don't think RAW they are models, I treat them like one in every way imaginable so it doesn't change a single rule and I'll even claim they are one. Saying a building count's as a model, is no different rules wise from actually being a model, (Unless you want to make the case for blast markers not hitting them, or focused witch fires) especially when you see the long list of times they 'count as' models.

Like when I asked this question and you never answered:
This question I'd really like an answer to: In relation to buildings, is there any rule when being a model or not makes a difference? Even if you're just counting them as models.

and the follow up question: If a building or quad gun has a blast scattered over it, would it still be hit? the building was not target by a shooting attack, nor was the quad gun shot at to trigger all the 'count as' clauses.

For the quad gun, do you agree you are treating it like a model & a enemy unit?

Are you really asking if a melta gun can roll an extra d6 to penetrate dangerous terrain? Just because you bought a upgrade to a building does not mean those 2 citadel scenery models are in the same unit, they don't even have the same type. If you have a different conclusion please let us know.

Sirlynchmob,
You still continue without grasping the core element I keep referring too, you keep waving away the very existence of Rules designed to allow us to treat Buildings as if they where something within situations X, Y and Z. You are seeing the effect of these Rules, the end result from all the Rules compiling and interacting, before coming to the wrong conclusion as to what created this result. This is an understandable mistake given the three pages of Rules designed to do just that, Rules you already have admitted to existing when you corrected my flowery use of 'pages on pages,' designed to ensure Buildings will fall under one 'Treat as Transport Vehicle' clause of one type or another for the entirety of the game. Given that makes up 99.5% of the Terrain pieces being shot at, assaulted or otherwise destroyed... more then understandable to see the results of these Rules and assume that they where Models all along, which leads to the logical conclusion that Terrain are Models also.

As for shooting at them like they are transports, have you forgotten this sentence at the very beginning of those three pages:
Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules
I did think about deleting that, because it was more of a underhanded jibe and you brought far more important things to the table this time, but it is the largest 'Counts As' clause in the whole book.

Now that you are asking why I don't simply state they are models, if the end result is the same, it is quite simple: Respect to the pages on pages of Rules that you constantly want to wave away and replace with 'being models is enough.' I also fore-see a lot of problems if we don't have some sort of 'non-model' status for things without a Profile that come from the terrain section of the Rules. Simply because the Rules themselves are not designed to operate against these things, and marking them as 'non-models' being the reason why these Rules don't have to function with them is an easy out. That is one thing you have not grasped in the scenarios I continue to put forth... in a pure Rule as Written environment we do not have permission to ignore Rules which can not execute because lack of detail. If all Scenery Models are Models, simply because the Title of their name contains the word 'models,' then they have to be treated as Models. We would have to resolve a Blast Marker against a Defense Line segment, but can not do so because it lacks a Profile to calculate To Wounds against....

So it is really simple, your explanations require a House Rule so models without Profiles are incapable of triggering any Rule while mine already has Rule Written support for the same.

So let us go back to the scenario situation cause I feel you mistook my scenarios:
I will give you half a point, as I did actually answer your scenario question by stating that the Authors did make a mistake with these Rules. I have complained that the instructions 'can be shot at' are far to vague to inform us much more then access to the shooting sequence itself, and the ability to resolve such. There are questions which can be raised concerning non-targeted attacks that happen to hit against the Gun Emplacement as well, I have never disputed that. I will simply highlight that it is a question that has actually been raised for a few other 'can not be targeted' Situations in the game, so not one unique to Gun Emplacements. So to answer you fully in the simplest way you want, as clearly I waste a hour writing these things for my own amusement:
By strict Rule as Written, a Gun Emplacement is immune to any Blast Marker which does not target it directly because it must be 'shot at' to be counted in the Shooting Sequence.

Now back to what happens if all Scenery Models are no longer non-model entities:
The point of my three scenarios where to highlight that allowing anything without a Profile to be considered a Model opens the door for all sorts of Rule interaction shenanigans. The last two had a common theme that I thought you might pick up on, and that is the requirement that all Models are part of a Unit. If Scenery Models are full Models, instead of it just being part of the name of these items, then they must also form into Units and be part of that Unit for all rule purposes. Then I was using two Rules which trigger based not on individual Models, but on being resolved against a Unit as a whole, to highlight that broken situations can occur in every day games. If one wanted to exploit situations created by the interpenetration that 'Scenery Models are Models,' they can manage to do so within 100% of their games to 100% effectiveness, just by creative placement and Rule application.

In the case of the Defense Line, I was highlighting that Wound Allocation would take any shot away from the intended target and allocate them to something which can never be removed as a Casualty through that method. The lack of a Profile ensures that there is no Wound Characteristic to reduce to 0, and if you create one to fill in the gaps with everything as - or 0 already it achieves the same thing. Without the ability to change 1 to 0, there is no method to trigger the 'remove as Casualty' clause so we have to assume that the Wounds generated against said Model are lost at that point. This would make it very easy to create defense lines which have Gun Encampments 100% immune to destruction from any attack bar close combat. Which gets a little more messy as well, as I can allocate Close Combat Attacks made against the gun to a segment of wall if one of your models is touching....

The Melta situation was a duel question in fact. Not only does it highlight the above's problem again, the Melta Shots could be Allocated to things without a profile, but it was going raise the follow question: How do we deal with Scenery Models that are purchased as upgrades to another Model? I was already undermining a possible 'treat them as the same Model' possible argument, as it would mean that I pop the Building in the above scenario thanks to the Melta Rule triggering and no one taking these upgrades for fear of having a much larger footprint for the enemy to shoot at. It would be impossible to treat them as their own Model in their own right, as it allows allocation trickery to be had, so they would have to exist in some sort of quantum state. Either way they cause problems for resolving simple every day Rules, almost as if the Rules where not written to function with Scenery Models being Models in all regards.

Here is another quick question:
A Strength 8 Beam goes through a Defense Line and hits the Toughness 4 Warlord behind, does he get feel no pain?

Hypothetical second follow up, as the power has been removed, but:
A beam with the effect Remove as Casualty on failed initiative test hits a Defense line before a Model with a Deny the Witch on 4+ Rule
Does the save roll on 4+ or 6+?
How does that resolve against something without a Profile?

See why I simply can see no answer other then 'Things without a profile are non-models, as supported by the definition put forth at the start of a book requiring Models to have a Profile and a Unit Type....'

we are told what aspects they use though, transport capacity and hull points just like transport vehicles have. That has nothing to do with unit type though, nor your house rule to assign buildings a unit type.

I'm not saying you should state in reference to buildings 'they are models' I'm saying it's disingenuous to just claim 'they are not models' without the disclaimer that you are treating them as models for all rules purposes. And if you're treating them as a model for all rules interactions, is it even worth bring up? Because you have yet to show how being a 'non model' to start with changes any outcome of any rule interaction. all the ones I point, you claim buildings are models for those rules.

As you agree that "Strict" RAW the gun emplacement is immune to blasts which don't target it, then by Strict RAW buildings are as well, especially in the case of unclaimed buildings.

All models in your army are formed into units, but that does not equate to them being in the same unit. Does anyone think that the fortress of redemption is one unit or even a squadron? I doubt it. It's 4 separate buildings and as such 4 separate units. The models that were not bought as part of your army are not in units. Even unclaimed buildings are neutral units, and to make this point again: you must pick a enemy unit to shoot at, so you can't shoot at unclaimed buildings.

Let's look at that sanctum imperials model in the middle of the board that we agreed to it's placement as terrain for our battle.
is it a model? yes, it's a citadel scenery model.
was it bought in either of our armies? no, so it isn't required to be in a unit.
is it a friendly or enemy model? no, it's neutral as it's not on either of our sides. (let's keep to 'side' meaning in our army and not do a side of the board tangent)
is it a enemy unit? no, so you can not choose to shoot at it, nor assault it, and as it's not a enemy unit you can move within 1" of it.
see resolution should something scatter onto it below.

Just like with vehicles you have to see the hull or turret, we ignore everything else, like with the orks battlewagon and their upgrade of a deff rolla. The deff rolla was never considered part of the hull, so just seeing the upgrade was not enough to target the vehicle. So when determining LOS to a building, you have to see the hull of the building, and you measure to the hull of the building. (since when do buildings have hulls? NVM tangent )

Your hype 1. No. Bring it back in, you're going so far off on a tangent I think you're getting lost.
hype 2. 4+, you really want to bring beam weapons into this already foggy discussion? You target a point on the ground, all 'units' under the beam are hit, number of hits based on 'models' under the line, any 'unit' under the line can deny the witch, so 4+ as a unit had a model with that ability.

I don't need a house rule for the initiative test like you claim:

So it is really simple, your explanations require a House Rule so models without Profiles are incapable of triggering any Rule while mine already has Rule Written support for the same.

We have the rule: "such a test can be applied against any characteristic that the model has."
No, the model of the ADL does not need to test it's initiative.

which is why I agree that :

We would have to resolve a Blast Marker against a Defense Line segment, but can not do so because it lacks a Profile to calculate To Wounds against....

as we can not resolve it, we just skip it.

I understand your stance of:

See why I simply can see no answer other then 'Things without a profile are non-models, as supported by the definition put forth at the start of a book requiring Models to have a Profile and a Unit Type....'

But you don't stick to it, and you dance around it for any rules interaction you don't agree with. If RAW gun emplacements are not models, then why is it 'strict rules as written' and not just RAW blasts, templates, beam weapons, focused witch fires, etc can't hit them as they are not models nor units? If they're not models, why strive to treat them as such? It's the dancing around the issue that makes me think your side is up to something fishy.

So far I haven't house ruled anything, while your list of house rules is growing. Hopefully this clarifies my position.

Another error in your assumptions: that we are informed only of what aspects of the Transport Rules to use, so anything not specified must be an aspect we can not access. That Rule though contains a very interesting key word that you seem to constantly overlook all. We are instructed that we use all aspect of Transport Rules, not some of them, so we use all related Rules unless told otherwise. Now there is a list of exceptions which follows that sentence, but unless they put Unit Type within that list of exceptions then it is an aspect of the Transport Rules which has to be applied. This is why Buildings do not have anywhere near the number of problems as Gun Emplacements, problems it still face underneath your interpenetration as well.

Now this is where I start to get a bit confused, given that we are talking about the state which is a true/false and outside of the realm of quantum mechanics. If something can not be described as X, because it lacks certain criteria that X must possess, then it can accurately be described as not-X. It is as simple as that when it comes to Scenery Terrain, as they lack access to a Profile and a Unit Type they can not be considered to be models in any Rule sense of the Rule. Only in situations where they are granted these missing elements, or we are informed that they simply meet the criteria, can we change the state from 'something which fails to meet the description' to 'something which compiles with the description.'

This next paragraph had me laugh though, did you honestly just make the argument that models can be broken up into multiple Units by default?

Now I do know of a few Units which have the ability to do just that, but each one of them clearly has Rules telling us which Models can split away and how we handle them after the fact. To my knowledge, no Terrain piece has ever had such a Rule so there is nothing you could evoke to grant the ability for them to be different Units. As for the rest of your paragraph, large structures such as the Fortress of Redemption have access to a Rule which informs us that each section is treated as an entirely different building. This is why no one has ever treated them as some sort of 'squadron,' because they have access to a Rule informing us that they function as independent Buildings and therefore independent Units. Just so you will know, these same Rules link options purchased for multiple-part structures to each individual part it was purchased for.

I will skip over the sanctum imperial part, as none of us have been discussing neutral non-models prior to this and I can not fathom where that is going.

After this you stated that you agreed with a sentence I put forth, but you ignored the entire context of that sentence: Without permission to ignore something, we can not ignore it.
Your answer for all the problems created by trying to resolve things against 'Models without Profiles and Unit Types' is to simply ignore that the problems even exist in the first place. While it is an understandable stance for an analog thinking, it is not one that is supported in a system that requires Written permission to do something. I would also like to highlight that finding permission to ignore one element of the problems has not proven that we can ignore all of them. To Wound are not a Character Test so we have to resolve them against a profile which doesn't exist and don't have permission to continue the game past that point. Hence the need for your explanation to have a House Rule to state we can ignore all Rule interaction because there will always be some interaction not addressed that breaks due to the lack of a Profile.

As for the claim I am hypocritically applying my stance allow me to state thus:
I might of made a few bad choice of words at some point, given how you have have tried to twist my words around as much as possible, but as far as I know I have always had the one stance: Scenery Models are non-model entities due to lack of Profile and Unit Type. This viewpoint has always acknowledge pages of Rules that exist in order to address how these non-models fit within Rules that address models, some with a good deal of thought behind then and some that are very basic and poorly executed. It is the existence of these Rules which I use as grounds for why Buildings and, to a lesser and poorly worded extent, Gun Emplacements function the way that they do.

So if you want to continue to ignore all the broken scenarios that your side creates and focus on the one broken scenario that I have agreed is a problem then feel free to do so....
Even though that same scenario is problematic to your current stance of 'ignore models without Profiles' given that the Rules grant a profile only when shot at, so it lacks one when it comes to resolving a scattered blast marker....

look at the transport rules, read all the transport rules, find the usage of unit type. A vehicle with the unit type: transport can use the transport rules. Buildings are given permission to use the transport rules, that does not grant them the unit type, that lets them use the aspects found under the transport rules. ie transport capacity, firepoints, and access points. If the error in assumption here is not mine, it must be ....

I said nothing like "models can be broken up into multiple Units by default? " You made the claim in your hypothetical that upgrades count as part of the building or are part of the buildings unit, I refuted it by showing you that your logic is flawed for a fortress & the way you presented it. You brought it up when you asked:

Each Building has the option of purchasing upgrades, such as barricades and barbed wire
These pieces are represented by Citadel Scenery Models which are deployed alongside but separate to the Building they where purchased for
A Unit is in Melta range to one such barricade, but not to the Building itself
Does benefit from Melta or not?

you asked if you can shoot at a upgrade as if it was the building, I never said anything of the sort and tried to show you why it's wrong, and you take it even further. You refer to this as a strawman.

I bring up a generic scenery piece to cover the entire spectrum. We have buildings on one end (which you say I can't win with even though you call them models because of your unit type house rule), and ruins /battlefield debris on the other with the gun emplacement moving towards the middle. I bring it up to show that there are no rules issues with them, by labeling them as models like GW did. Based on your hypotheticals I really don't think you are understanding my position and used it to help clarify it.

If it can't be resolved then it can't be resolved and there's no point dwelling on it. It's a general practice to ignore things that don't matter, like in an assault with a vehicle, RAW every engaged model must fight. But do you go and roll to hit and pens for the models that have no chance in causing a glance or pen?

go read through your series of hypotheticals, and ask yourself, who is twisting words?

Gun emplacements are not causing problems based on my usage of the word model. the marker scatters, you see the model underneath it. it has been hit and profile that can be used. In the shooting phase, you choose an enemy unit to shoot and choose the gun emplacement. You need 2 house rules to cover this as from the way you used 'strictly RAW' you seem to be saying you want blasts to still affect them even if scattered.

I'm ignoring nothing, from both our claims the other is using house rules and creating broken scenarios. Your last two hypothetical though really went off on a tangent and I still answered them.

You clearly are calling buildings models, they have a profile, you've given them a unit type, by your own criteria they are models. I know, but it's only during shooting attacks, the psychic phase, assaults, or when affected by special rules. Basically during the entire game they are models. Should I quote where you said it so you can see I didn't twist your words?

At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

you claim they're not models, then treat them like one whenever you interact with them. I'm glad you see that for what it is. How about this then for your counter claim "while strictly RAW they are not models, I treat them like one during the game."

Or maybe you can finally answer this question:
This question I'd really like an answer to: In relation to buildings, is there any rule when being a non model makes a difference?

Interesting claim, to state permission to use Rules found within the Unit Type section of the Rulebook excludes access to the Unit Type itself. I find it interesting as it requires a nice twisting of common sense which I do find entertaining to think on, and even I don't think we can properly determine if the statement is correct or not even if we had many weeks of discussion on that alone. However, instead of spending weeks on does or does it not gain access, I am just going to point back to the all in the Rule and that it means just that, all of the aspects of a Transport Vehicle must be used for Buildings unless otherwise specified. That leaves just one simple question: Is the Unit Type of 'Vehicle: Transport' an aspect of all Transport Vehicles possess?

Now I will have to carry out an underhanded apology next as I did take your words, "All models in your army are formed into units, but that does not equate to them being in the same unit." as a claim that the Models in question can be broken into multiple Units, even when they don't specifically mention being able to do so in their entries. It was my belief that you where going to explain away some of the 'immortal Buildings and Gun Encampment' issues created if all Citadel Scenery Model are models and therefore part of the same Unit by stating they are all their own own Units. That would make it so they wouldn't be included as part of the resolution against the Building or Gun Emplacement itself, but doesn't have any actual Rule support in these situations. So I do apologize for assuming that you intended to that these Scenery Models have permission to be different Units.
So I will do the polite thing I should of done to begin with and ask: Why did you think it was important to state that Models do not have to belong to the same Unit?

As for the Melta situation; putting forth a hypothetical situation and ask how a person would resolve it is far from a Straw-man even if the situation was loaded. I do find it humerus that the situation I put forth wasn't even that "loaded," as it wasn't designed to get any specific answer from you that I could use for a 'got ya' moment. It was nothing more then a request for you to honestly answer how you would go about confirming if the Melta Rule triggers in that situation. My actual hope for those situations was to draw your attention this little problem: We measure from the closest model in the Unit when determining distances. If the Barricade is a Model within the Unit known as a Bastion, then measuring to that Unit requires us to draw to the Barricade as it would be the closest Model. If the Barricade does not trigger this Rule, then it becomes very important for you to explain how it can still be a model but doesn't trigger any model related Rules by presenting something which allows these things to be immune. Hopefully, it will be an explanation that also includes why a Defense Line isn't considered the closest Model for Wound Allocation as well.

If it is nothing more then 'No Profile means the Rule can't be applied' I am simply going to ask:
Do you have anything to support for that concept, specifically instructions informing us exactly when it is safe to ignore certain Rules and when they are applied?

The Gun Emplacement is an interesting to bring up next, considering it is one thing that cause me problems from several points of view. Some of these concerns are not even addressed by making it into a Model, one has to do with the fact it has no Enemy or Friendly designation for example. In fact, let us address that element and apply the concept that it is a model as well to the equation: If purchased as part of your opponents Army it would receive the Enemy designation and part of your army would make it Friendly. Enemy Models would not be able to move into 1 inch from the Gun Emplacement, and technically the entire Defense Line, nor will any of your side be able to shoot at the gun itself if the enemy did manage to find some way to touch it such as a Charge.
Can we simply accept that the Rules for it are just so poorly written, to the point I could make believable 'Rule as Written' arguments that remove the profile from this thing completely unless it is being attacked in close combat, and leave it at that?

On the matter of your closing I do have a request, change the counter claim to read so we can see a middle ground:
Objects which lacks a Unit Type(and possibly Terrain Types) or Profile require alternative instructions granting them access to any model-specific Rules.
Then we can simply state our disagreement is over what to call those Objects, and I will leave the debate over Terrain=Unit Type to others.

I will answer your last question as well, because you are asking me from a personal stand point. Honestly, I do not know any off the top of my head and doubt we will ever encounter a scenario where this whole academical discussion on the correct Rule interpenetration will ever matter. The Count As Rules for Buildings are pretty extensive and they cover a great deal of situations with so little cracks to speak of. This should be expected though, as very few elements in the book have three pages dedicated to how they function within the Rule-sets created and this covers a good deal of what will be encountered in 99.5% of the games. Of that tiny minority where it could create a problem, analog thinkers like you and I will ignore the discrepancies if encountered at the table and move on because a game as poorly written as 40K requires that from time to time.
However, if we where to encounter a Rule which is applied before the Game Begins and simply targets 'Models' then the definition becomes very important as we have to determine what is a Model and what is a non-Model.

Though if you wanted to see me twist words how about this:
Your stance is that Buildings do not gain access to the Unit Type of Vehicle: Transport but remain as a Model, correct?
What would happen if a Warlord Trait was to single out Non-Vehicles....
Twisted the argument right back to where it begun!

That leaves just one simple question: Is the Unit Type of 'Vehicle: Transport' an aspect of all Transport Vehicles possess?

No, it's a type that a vehicle may or may not have. Unit types are different from vehicle types, they are not equivalent. models have one unit type, vehicles can combine many types. If all transports were tanks, type (transport, tank) would you also claim buildings have the tank type? And wouldn't BS also be an aspect, and buildings don't list that as a main difference.

So I will do the polite thing I should of done to begin with and ask: Why did you think it was important to state that Models do not have to belong to the same Unit?

Bad choice of words on my part, take the fortress, it is 4 separate buildings bought as one fortification. From the example here we can see that a building and stand alone upgrades are also separate and not part of the same unit.

If purchased as part of your opponents Army it would receive the Enemy designation and part of your army would make it Friendly. Enemy Models would not be able to move into 1 inch from the Gun Emplacement, and technically the entire Defense Line, nor will any of your side be able to shoot at the gun itself if the enemy did manage to find some way to touch it such as a Charge.

I think this is the intent and not a problem, Fortifications can be included in your army. 'All units' have a battlefield role, and fortification is one of the most common roles listed. Fortification which can be buildings and/or battlefield debris.

However, if we where to encounter a Rule which is applied before the Game Begins and simply targets 'Models' then the definition becomes very important as we have to determine what is a Model and what is a non-Model.

If the game hasn't begun yet, is anything a model by the rules? citadel miniatures used to 'play' games of warhmmer are models. So until we start to play and the game begins any use of the word 'model' would have to be the dictionary usage of the word. When do we start playing? at the start of the game? during the pre game setup?

Though if you wanted to see me twist words how about this:
Your stance is that Buildings do not gain access to the Unit Type of Vehicle: Transport but remain as a Model, correct?
What would happen if a Warlord Trait was to single out Non-Vehicles....
Twisted the argument right back to where it begun!

yes
it could be used on models, assuming nothing else prevented it, just not vehicles nor buildings. Is their such a trait currently? I don't have all the codexes but I didn't find any in the BRB.

This is better as it leaves out 'not a model'.

Objects which lacks a Unit Type(and possibly Terrain Types) or Profile require alternative instructions granting them access to any model-specific Rules.

It also avoids all the follow up questions of "what do you mean by 'not a model' and 'how does that affect these rules that affect models' Which is what I always wonder when I see someone post they're not models.

Again we have to address the concept that Unit Types allocated to Vehicles are not Unit Types. Given that I have already pointed out the formatting of the book itself, that the Rules informing us how a Transport or a Skimmer work are found in the Unit Type section, and that the profiles file the Tank or Transport type under a heading 'Unit Type' indicate that these things are Unit Types. There are numerous other cases where Vehicles are referenced along side other Unit Types when discussing that different types of Units have different Rules which will be discussed in the Unit Type section of the book. At this point what will I need to show you to prove that Transport is just as valid a Unit Type as Jet Pack?

The reason why a something like the Fortress of Redemption has permission to be treated as separate entities is the Rules inform us to treat them as if they where entirely separate from each other. Without access to such a Rule, something like the Defense Line or a Imperial Bastion does not have permission to have each section be treated as separate entities. It wouldn't help even if they did have access, as Upgrades purchased for sections of a multiple part structure are also addressed by this Rule. Off the top of my head I can't remember the exact wording, but it was along the lines of each Upgrade being purchased for each individual section of Building... little hard to accept that Upgrades have permission to be treated as separate Buildings by default given those Rules.

Now I have to wonder, do you honestly believe that a Defense Line is intended to be an Enemy Model for all Rule purposes?
I raise this question because I already pointed out why it would be a problem using the most common rule conflict available: the inability to simply move into base contact with an Enemy Model.
Of course, if you want to take the stance that objects without a profile lack access to Model-Specific Rules, then the whole problem and a few other above ones go away....

As for the Game needing to begin for something to be a Model the answer is simply: No, it doesn't matter.
There are a wide range of Rules which trigger before an official 'start point' in the game, which occurs at some point when the Armies are Deployed.

As for the Twist back to the opening post:
Why not Buildings, are they Vehicle Models by default?

As for those follow up questions I would answer them by stating:
Non-Models are objects which lack a Profile or Unit Type, something we are told Models will possess, and where given the title of non-model for contrast.
These Objects, regardless if we call then non-models or Mr. Bob, then lack access to any Rule in which a 'Model' or 'Unit' is the subject of said Rule by virtue of not being the named subject matter. This in turn forces any Rule wishing to interact with the Object in question to single it out by name, to specify that X has access to Y. Making a distinction between true Models and these objects is vital, given the number of Rules which will cause a conflict if they are applied to one of these Objects, either through lack of instructions on how to successfully resolve or simply by producing really unusual situations to form.

In Short: It gives us the ability to state any Rule which requires a Profile or Unit Type to function can not be applied to something which lacks these Features, with Rule backed support as to why.

At this point what will I need to show you to prove that Transport is just as valid a Unit Type as Jet Pack?

You can't, this is one of the fundamental flaws in your argument. you say "see they mention vehicles under unit type" but 'vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on' Vehicles do not have unit types, they have vehicle types. that are so distinct, ie different, not the same as unit types they didn't put them under unit types. Every time you say vehicles are referenced under unit types, it is to say they are different and need their own section. so vehicle types are not the same as unit types. And when we find the vehicles own section they have 'types' not 'unit types'. Lastly you can be a unit without a unit type as vehicles are units without a unit types.

To ask a second time: wouldn't BS also be an aspect, and buildings don't list that as a main difference. If the vehicle profile is part of the aspect that all transports have, what is the BS of the building?

Why not Buildings, are they Vehicle Models by default?

Not by default, just anytime, any rule looks at them. Are you claiming buildings are non vehicle models for pre game rules purposes? It would help if you could point to a specific rule to help clarify this point.

Now I have to wonder, do you honestly believe that a Defense Line is intended to be an Enemy Model for all Rule purposes?
yes based on these rules I posted.

Fortifications can be included in your army. 'All units' have a battlefield role, and fortification is one of the most common roles listed. Fortification which can be buildings and/or battlefield debris. all that is important is that each unit uses a single slot on the force organization chart.

All units have a battlefield role, fortification is a battlefield role, battlefield debris are a fortification in your army. the ADL is therefore a unit with the battlefield role of fortification.

Read through 119 & 120 and see how in order to put something onto the FOC it must be a unit. Or would you like to claim fortifications do not take up FOC slots because they're not units before the start of the game, and therefore you can never take any? Now that would solve all of the problems

They have a unit type, the unit type is vehicle.

Referencing the Codex: Space Marines, Rhino entry: "Unit Type: • Vehicle (Tank, Transport)"

And the Ork Codex Trukk Entry: "UNIT TYPE: Vehicle (Fast, Open-topped, Transport)."

So clearly Vehicle is a unit type. and fast, Tank, Transport, Open-topped, are all different types of vehicles, though they are all still unit type Vehicle.

So your answer to "what I will need to show to prove the point?" was to outright state that nothing can prove this point to you?
At this moment in time I am seriously wondering if I misjudged you. I was posting under the assumption that you would review what I have posted, think on the evidence put forth and then come to a conclusion at that point in the process. With an open admittance that nothing I post will ever be enough to convince you of this matter, I must change that assumption to conclude that you only are interested in hammering on the table to drown out any opposing viewpoint.
I will simply choose not to waste my time any further: You may continue to assume that a section found under the heading of 'Unit Types,' related to a value that can be found in the Unit Type section on a profile, is talking about something completely unrelated to Unit Types if you wish to do so.

I will try and answer your questions, but don't expect me to give it much thought considering the above:
The Ballistic Score granted to a Building is covered within the pages of Rules designed for that purpose
The Rule for determining when they are treated as Vehicle do not state 'any time' but give us specific interactions in which they count as Vehicles
Battlefield Role is irrelevant, a Rule stating the "Object" has permission to be fill a Fortification Slot means it has permission to fill said Slot

Not at all, but when it comes to unit types & vehicle types I have thought about it, and see no reason to equate the two. Under unit type we are told exactly that for vehicles. What would it take to convince you, that it is you are in error for equating the two? Everywhere you can point to that says 'vehicles' it only tells that they are different and have their own rules.

The Rule for determining when they are treated as Vehicle do not state 'any time' but give us specific interactions in which they count as Vehicles

That's what I said "anytime, any rule looks at them"

Battlefield Role is irrelevant, a Rule stating the "Object" has permission to be fill a Fortification Slot means it has permission to fill said Slot

And units have permission fill those slots. "each slot allows you to take one unit"

Unit Types:-
Under what Heading in the book are the Vehicle Rules found, not the title of the section or sub-section but the very Heading in which those sections and sub-sections are found?
When looking at an Army Entry for a Devilish what is the name of the field in which 'transport' has been written?

What will convince me that the two are not linked:
1) You will have to find an answer to the above two questions, which are relevant to the core reason why I believe they are Unit Types, which explains why the Rules have been 'misfiled'
2) Put forth a theory that supports Vehicles successfully Resolving scenarios containing Rules singling out Profile and a Unit Type requirements
3) Quote a few Rules from the book which can support that theory, not situation Rule interactions which might be made 'smoother' by such a concept but straight up Rule quotes that allow Vehicles to gain access to these Rules without having Unit Types of their own.

Count As Vehicle:
The Rule doesn't read 'anytime, any rule looks at them' either....

Slots:
Units having permission by default is meaningless, if permission for a 'non-Unit object' to take the Slot also exists....

I'll get back to you on unit types.

counts as vehicles, I simplified the statement but that is what it is saying. I know technically, it's only during the shooting phase, the psychic phase, the assault phase, or when affected by special rules.

For the FOC and slots.
"This section of the detachment lists the minimum and maximum number of units of each type that you must or may include in the detachment."
"Each slot allows you to take one unit."

the fortification slot, allows you to take one unit. There is no permission for non units to take the slot. You have permission to fill that slot with a unit.

the force roster: "write down the details of the models that make up your army, which units belong to which detachments."

Everything you do when choosing your army requires models and units.

Like you said earlier:

However, if we where to encounter a Rule which is applied before the Game Begins and simply targets 'Models' then the definition becomes very important as we have to determine what is a Model and what is a non-Model.

Are buildings and ADL's models when making your force roster? Do they have to belong to a detachment like units are required to do?

Something I have always found curious is that Warlord Traits are always listed separate from Special Rules....

Force Organization Slot:
The possible path that you are taking with this one has me interested, I will review the Rules more closely when I have access to my library.
Entries flagged for use as Fortifications already have access to the Fortification Slot, regardless of Unit status, but there could still be some secondary Rule interactions that would be interesting to observe.

JinxDragon wrote:
Something I have always found curious is that Warlord Traits are always listed separate from Special Rules....

Well if you go with the definition of special rules:
"whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule"

Of course this is a whole new can of worms.

As warlord traits bends or breaks the main game rules, they are special rules.

Let me know what you find after reviewing the rules.

That sentence is also curious to me, more so in relation to Warlord Traits, as it singles out main game Rules:
How do we go about defining which Rules are 'Main Game Rules' and which ones are simply 'A Rule within the Game?'

I have been pondering, not seriously because I have not had a reason to do so, if it would be possible to claim that Warlord Traits are themselves a 'Main Game Rule' and therefore any Warlord Trait is not a Special Rule as it isn't modifying itself. This line of thought would involve using the format of the book itself, highlighting that Warlord Traits are located right in the 'selecting your Army' section of the book, and pointing out that the surrounding sections would all be defined as 'Main Game Rules' as they inform us how to go about playing the game as opposed to modifying already existing Rules. This could be coupled with the fact that sentence states whenever a creature or weapon has... and pointing out that Warlord Traits are not something that creature or weapon gains by default but something rewarded to the Model by a possible 'Main Rule' itself. I did have a third point but due to timing I have to go so It will be left unsaid....

Still, side pondering which are meaningless:
Just inform me when you have more to say on Unit Types as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will be honest, I am a little... intoxicated which is why I wanted to put this off but I had something I wanted to look into. That was the way Datasheets are formatted but while doing so I found the Rule which brought more things to light:
Each datasheet uses up a single fortification slot on the Force Organisation chart.
- Fortification Datasheets, Stronghold Assault.

Well let us throw sleep deprivation on top to make things interesting.
Here we have a quoted Rule from the source-book containing the Datasheet used for the only Citadel Scenery Models with permission to be included in Warhammer 40k as Fortifications. It does multiple things, ranging from preventing the Fortification being put into two Detachments or multiple Fortifications into a single Combined Arm Detachment, and covers the vast majority of the 'broken situations' you have put forth. The few minor cracks that might slip past that one sentence can do minor damage at best, and if you an find a few of those situations for me to review I will do just that. I can think of one or two little ones myself, once you add a fourth Rule interaction to the mix, that would potentially effect one situation in a single set of Units from a single Codex. I think cracks that small are more suitable to be waved away under 'situations far out of the Authors preview' however so it would be up to you to find such ones and see if there is any that I can see to be completely crumbling to my stance.

At this point I am going to have to return to the above problem I encountered when I asked a simple question: What is there I can do to prove this concept correct to you?

If you have watched Futurama you will likely know the episode with the meme 'I don't want to live on this planet anymore,' and how no matter which links are bridged the goal posts kept getting moved around so the opposition could claim success. I have not done much on the offensive, and your replies to them failed to convince me that your point was even supported let alone better supported then mine. I even considered the possibility that you simply refuse to consider the multiple issues caused by denying that 'non-model objects' exist, but I am still willing to continue because it has been quite interesting and let me learn some things about the Rules even if they strengthened my point of view more then your own. As long as I am not wasting my time, if there is nothing I can do to sway you from the point of view that everything purchased from Citadel are Models for all Rule purposes then we are just going to have to accept that players are smart enough to ignore the problems caused by that stance even if Rules are not.

But still, the three things below are normally the only points I have to make to support the concept at the end:
There are Rules designed to only work against objects with Profiles and Unit Types: True / False
There is a sentence defining Models, preventing objects without a Profile or Unit Type from interacting with these Rules: True / False
Objects which fail to meet this definition, but require access to the Rules, have pages informing us how they interact: True / False

Therefore:
Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can be ignored, as they are not the subject of Model-Related Rules being something other then a "Model."

you keep stressing these points:

Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can therefore be ignored, they are not the subject of these Rules being something other then a "Model."

However, if we where to encounter a Rule which is applied before the Game Begins and simply targets 'Models' then the definition becomes very important as we have to determine what is a Model and what is a non-Model.

Yet in all situations presented, you choose to equate buildings and the gun emplacement as models. This alone should crumble your stance. The only reason you don't see the full damage of your position is because you are ignoring the problems they create, you admit to waiving them away and you're treating them as models. If it is your stance, why not commit to it?

Do you have a fortification slot in your CAD, yes or no?
did you put a unit in it, yes or no?
If you have the slot, it opens up space for a unit to fill, ergo to put a fortification in it, it must be a unit.

I know you think this is your dance around the point

Each datasheet uses up a single fortification slot on the Force Organisation chart.

but it's not. "Each slot allows you to take one unit." the fortification data sheet allows you to take more units and count as one slot.

Would you list the ADL, building, or fortification datsheet on your army list? yes or no
did you spend the points for that model? yes or no
did you only take a single model? yes or no (assuming the composition stated 1 model like they usually do)
we list the details of models on the army list.
feel free to show how you choose your army and put non models and non units in it?

I've not moved the goal post at all, we are told many times that terrain pieces are models. Everywhere you see terrain, you see them referred to as models. we list fortification models on our army list, we fill our army list with units that fill the battlefield role of fortification. Your offensive went off on wild tangents and used the last editions rules for beam weapons. And most of the concepts you brought, I think those cracks are small and more suitable to be waved away under 'situations far out of the Authors preview' however so it would be up to you to find such ones and see if there is any that I can see to be completely crumbling to my stance. I think they only difference we've found is that I would allow you to shoot at the ADL, but ask you to stay one inch away from it and the gun. Hardly a major issue and one easily settled.

My stance is simple, "citadel scenery models are models" If you question my position that is where I am coming from and how I am answering. Where your stance leads to anywhere you see the word model, you have to ask if you're counting it as a model then? You haven't even listed a rule yet, where being a non model makes a difference to any rules as applied to buildings, and only grudgingly for gun emplacements admitted that scattered blasts shouldn't hit them.

again you say,

Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can therefore be ignored, they are not the subject of these Rules being something other then a "Model."

Yet you grant buildings a unit type so they can be models. Because you equated using the transport rules, to having the transport type. If gun emplacements are not the subject of these rules, then why do you allow things that target models to affect them?

If you want to convince me that there are non models in the game, and that buildings, and gun emplacements are not models, then stop equating them to models.
You acknowledge there are 2 usages of the word 'model' in the rules, show how each use of the word 'model' is being used. Two uses, yet you only want to allow one in the rules.
state RAW, RAI and HYWPI, gun emplacements are not affected by beam weapons, blasts, templates, focused witchfires, and anything else targeting a model.
State strictly RAW you can't even take fortifications as you don't count them as models until you are told to, and army building is not one of the times you treat them as models, so you can't buy the model, list the model, nor have a fortification unit to fill the slot.
Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can therefore be ignored, they are not the subject of these Rules being something other then a "Model." right?

This is the song and dance I brought up earlier, You still claim they are not models, yet strive to treat them as such even when not told to count them as one. So much so that there is no difference for buildings or the gun emplacement, you even stated 'strictly RAW' scattered blasts don't affect gun emplacements, which I take to mean you don't play it that way. It's like you're ignoring the problems caused by that stance. It's also like your trying to get your forth piece of fluff by having tea and no tea at the same time. (hows that for an obscure reference )

For your questions:
There are Rules designed to only work against objects with a Profile and Unit Type: True / False (unknown I didn't design the game, so I can't answer to how it was designed, but if you're meaning that when we look at the rules, one at a time, will we find one rule that works against both profiles and unit types at the same time?, then I'd assume false.)
There is a sentence which prevents objects without a Profile or Unit Type from interacting with these Rules: True / False (False, why did you change 'and unit type' to 'or unit type'? you claim you need both, but changed your claim to only need 1.)
Objects which fail to meet this definition, but require access, have pages of Rules informing us how they interact: True / False (true and false, some do, some don't)

Context of why they can be ignored is important, that you keep ignoring to the point that I wonder if you are doing it deliberately. Let me try once more and see if this time you grasp the whole, instead of taking a single sentence and trying to make it into the whore argument: There exists a whole group of Rules which require the Objects they are interacting with to have a Profile and/or a Unit Type to function, these include a great deal of Rules which simply refer to 'Models' or by their collective term of 'Units.' At the start of the book we where given instructions that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type, as well a few other things which we can derive from other places in the Rule Book. It is my stance that we have this description for a very important reason, because the Rules where written with the idea that Models will have them to begin with. The concept is simply objects without A) Rules allowing them access regardless of their lack of a Profile or Unit Type or B) have a Profile and Unit Type, are no longer the subject of the Rules.
By not being the subject of the Rule, the Rule has no ability to be applied to the Object in question and that stops a lot of Rules applying to things which they shouldn't apply to, as per my closing ****ish behavior.

You have tried to find multiple issues with this and I feel I have explained how these Non-Model Objects have Rules which allow them access regardless of their failings....
It is simple as that: I have quoted pages of rules, ones that you have acknowledge exist but simply refuse to admit why they exist, in order to address these failing.

But let me try and explain your Force Organization Slot problem a little better as that one was new:
First - Disregard every Rule that references things like 'each slot allows you to take a Unit...' for these Rules refer to how Units fill slots, not how Non-Model Objects fill slots.
- At this point we have to conclude that the Player can not fill the Fortification Slot, nothing we have been presented for choices are 'Units' and can not select one of these Non-Model Objects
Second - Evoke the Rule that allows you to take Fortification Datasheets to fill up that Slot instead, allowing us to select anything as legal Fortification's for an Army to possess
- Every Datasheet which is used for a Fortification Slot is found in the very same section this Rule is, in fact the next page starts with the Datasheets themselves
- This Rule states the Slot is used up, as in consumed, so after a Datasheet is taken another Slot is required
- This Rule states it can fill a single Slot, so after a Datasheet is taken to fill this Slot it can not fill a second Slot as well
- By singling out Datasheets can fill Slots, it allows the use of Networks which have Rules allowing multiple Fortifications to be selected within a single Slot
- Each Datasheet which contains multiple objects as part of their composition have access to a Rule allowing those Buildings to be treated as separate, with sub-rules for how upgrades purchased for those objects function
At this point, where is the problem?

But let see if I can check off some of your concerns now:-
Equating Models:
This I can not do, because there exists objects which do not have a Profile or Unit Type and we need some way to define them. As we are already using the definition of Model to describe things with a Profile and Unit Type, we can't ignore the link between the two. Calling an object without these features an anti-Model or non-Model is a good fast name for the whole group. For the sake of a middle ground though, will you be willing to admit that there is a third group which lack Profiles or Unit Types but still have access to the Rules thanks to a ream of secondary Rules informing us just that?
I have always admitted to 'Count As' Rules, so why not use them as a defining factor for ease of understanding?
Duel use of the term Model:
I see them refereed to first as Citadel Scenery Models, as a common name for something Game Workshop sells, so proper use of English. Some of the Rules tell us to refer back to the Citadel Scenery Line, while others simply refer to them by the whole name of 'Scenery Models.' With how often this section of the Rulebook has used a common name, mostly to promote sales as we shouldn't forget these Rules exist for that as well, it is suspect to simply assume the occasional use of simply 'model' is to show intention for all of these things to interact with Rules requiring Profiles or Unit Types.
I find it extremely interesting that the few situations where it is simply refereed to as 'model' have also had the piece refereed to as a 'Citadel Scenery Model' prior in the same Rule.
Gun Emplacements:
Rule as written = Beam weapons, blast, template, focused Witch fires and such - Only if targeted
- This is a problem with the Gun Emplacement Rules and not the base concept, thanks to the single line of instructions which are meaningless: Can Be Shot at. 'shot at' which I take to mean targeted.
- It exists for considering it a full Model as well, as has the following profile: is less then quarter of the Rule and not even a full sentence.
- The Rule begins by stating A gun emplacement can be shot at... which means it still needs permission to be shot at in order to have the profile
--- Strict Technical Rule as Written it only has a Profile when Hit automatically in Close Combat as that is part of the very same sentence !
Rule as Intended = Unknown, the Authors have done strange things with Blast Markers and I have always doubted some interactions because of that, however I doubt they intended for Gun Emplacements to be immune
How I Play It = Ignore how poorly the Rule is written by stating it has access to the Sequence regardless of being targeted or not, but I also play it so the Gun Emplacement is the only thing affected even if it is part of a Defense Line and other segments are also under the Marker.
Strict Rule as Written on Fortification in detail:
The explanation far above about Fortification Datasheets addresses this, granting permission for the ... lets say psudo-models ... to be taken regardless of their status as Units or Models which undermines your argument completely.

This has been the same for many of the other 'if it is not a model, how can it do this?' scenarios you have put forth because there exists a Rule to tell is exactly how they gain access to the Rule regardless of Model status.

As to the 'answers' you provided to my question:
I will have to say thank you for being so obtuse on the questions I put forth that I would have to respect it as trolling.

First Question:
You clearly understand what I mean by Profile "and" Unit Type, after the arguments you have tried I know very well that you understood it was a typo and should of read Profile or Unit Type.
If you want to reevaluate your question, cause even basic Shooting Rules require things like a Profile to function, feel free to do so.
Second Question:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
and
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.
and
In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type
Want to retract that answer completely?
Third Question, follow up:
Which Objects require access to the basic Rules but do not already have some sort of 'Count as' or other instruction telling us that fact?

Now I know if you will want to answer because I am going to be very ****ish now:- In this Hypothetical you are correct and anything refereed to as "Citadel Scenery Models" are Models for all Rule purposes....
Putting aside that they now violated all the Rules I just quoted, by not having the required criteria, let us continue through the rest of the Rulebook from just that point forward and see what questions come to light:

Units - Models are grouped into Units
--- Important, as this would make each Datasheet a single Unit, unless otherwise stated like Networks, then every segment is part of that Unit
Bases - Models are mounded on the base they are supplied with, in cases where bases are not supplied we are free to mount them on suitable bases
--- Thanks for making my Defense Line a little taller, but it could be stated as a requirement that Models have bases - Vehicles later get around this with more advanced Rules allowing substitution of Hull for base but Battlefield Debris does not have access to Vehicle Rules
Measuring - Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base. Distances between units are always measured to and from the bases of the closest models in each of the units (see the diagram below).
--- This makes it so we measure to the closest Citadel Scenery Model in the group for all purposes involving Measurement
Characteristic Tests - Such a test can be applied against any characteristic that the model has, except for Leadership and Armour Save.
--- Just unusual Terminology, thought to mark it as such and it can be ignored for now .... sure I am over-looking another Rule which denies Characteristic Tests against Profiles without the Characteristic but if that was the line... excepting Leadership, how interesting.
--- Though I could again point out that Vehicles have Rules stating they ignore all Leadership tests but what about our good old Battlefield Debris again?
Friendly and Enemy Models - All models on the same side are friendly models. Models controlled by the opposing side are enemy models.
--- All the purchased Fortification are Enemy Models for all Rule purposes, very important

Movement: Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.
--- Buildings have a clause stating they are Immobile regardless of permission to move, what about Battlefield Debris?
--- Did this just give me permission to move my Defense Line segments around?
Models in the way: A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.
--- While they are difficult terrain, if they are Enemy Models they can not be moved into 1 inch of and friendly Models can not move over them without special Rules allowing them to do such
Moving and Close Combat
--- Vehicles have Rules granting Enemy Units exception to being Locked in Combat, Battlefield Debris does not have access to Vehicle Rules, so Enemy Units in contact with a Defense Line Segment....

You Know what, at this point I will stop as I didn't even get all the way through the first phase of the basic Rules before I found all sorts of questions that I am sure you will be able to address with enough time. I didn't even get to the really fun ones, such as Wound Allocation and Line of Sight to Enemy Models and questions along the lines of 'does the lack of a Body make them immune to Line of Sight Requirements.' However, in interest of not recreating the entire of the Rulebook and getting DakkaDakka shut down for flagrant Copyright violation, let us leave the line of questions and pointing out unusual situations at just the first phase of the Rulebook and some pre-phase Rules.

Of the questions which have been raise with the concept of 'Non-Model Objects,' the vast vast vast majority have been answered by quoting more Advanced Rules further in the Rule-book to explain how these objects can legally function with the Rules in question.
So to come close to somewhere equal you find one simple quotable Rule explaining the following:
How does your side address situations where Rules can not be applied to "Models" without a Profile and/or Unit Type?

But let us we see one line again:
Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on)
As if Terrain features, such as that represented by Citadel Scenery Models, and Rule-based Models are separate objects.

As to the 'answers' you provided to my question:
I will have to say thank you for being so obtuse on the questions I put forth that I would have to respect it as trolling.

First Question:
You clearly understand what I mean by Profile "and" Unit Type, after the arguments you have tried I know very well that you understood it was a typo and should of read Profile or Unit Type.
If you want to reevaluate your question, cause even basic Shooting non-Vehicle Rules require things like a Wound Characteristic to function, feel free to do so.
Second Question:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
and
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.
and
In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type
Want to retract that answer completely?
Third Question, follow up:
Which Objects require access to the basic Rules but do not already have some sort of 'Count as' or other instruction telling us that fact?

First as you think I keep twisting your words, I could only answer the questions as you put them. Not try to deduce what you meant which is why I asked follow up questions.
second question, you said there is "A" sentence, singular, you stated 4. The way you asked your question, it could only be answered as false.
third, buildings have pages, gun emplacements have 2 sentences.

If you ask obtuse questions, and expect a true or false answer, you'll get the answers for the questions you asked. Should I have just answered False, False, Both? Those were the answers you were asking for. Because I elaborated, I'm being obtuse?

You're off on some fun new tangents, so lets just start with a couple to show some the liberties you are taking with the rules. I'll skip counting up the number of rules you ignored and got wrong. As I think we've covered this enough for today.

What base was your ADL supplied with?
pg 62, unit types, "so far we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry. The movement rules are how infantry moves. Those basic rules get modified for units, there's a chart in the reference section that breaks down how far units can move. so no you can't move your ADL around.

I think you need to calm down, edit your post for clarity, because a lot of it is not making sense and some of it is demonstrably wrong. ie gun emplacements and beam weapons, beam weapons don't target units, they target a point on the battlefield.

and speaking of locked in combat, let's bring it back to the middle. If the gun emplacement is assaulted, and you let all usages of model mean gun emplacement, are you locked in combat with the gun emplacement? You should answer yes here, but I'm not sure if you would.

I have always admitted to 'Count As' Rules, so why not use them as a defining factor for ease of understanding?

Because as I have pointed out, creating a model/non model dichotomy does not lead to a ease of understanding.

Doubtful my questions where that confusion, but when your splitting hairs over four sentence not being 'A Sentence' as if that waves away the Rules being quoted I think it speaks enough for itself....

Besides I mentioned I am done with the defensive responses, let me just pretend to simply be a young Rule Lawyer asking you how the Rules interact with Citadel Scenery Models. Should I find something and bring it to your attention you simply can do me the pleasure of explaining how it works, quoting as many Rules as possible to support why it works as you describe it. Should I bring a list of problems, I simply ask that you do not just address one that you view to be the weakest/easiest point on the list, because that will leave me believing all the rest are problems that can not be addressed. So to keep it all fairly simple let me ask:

How do Citadel Scenery Models interact with the Movement Phase Rules?

PS: - I evoke my Rule granted permission to mount them on suitable bases, now they are legally on bases....

JinxDragon wrote:
Doubtful my questions where that confusion, but when your splitting hairs over four sentence not being 'A Sentence' as if that waves away the Rules being quoted I think it speaks enough for itself....

Besides I mentioned I am done with the defensive responses, let me just pretend to simply be a young Rule Lawyer asking you how the Rules interact with Citadel Scenery Models. Should I find something and bring it to your attention you must do the same curtsy I tried to give you and explain how it works, quoting as many Rules as possible to support your view if we encounter a problem. I will expect you to answer as many questions and address the points that arise as possible, I did try and do that much for you even if we overlooked a few along the four pages and walls of texts. I simply ask that you do not just address one that you view to be the weakest point on the list, because that will be quite obvious. Start with what seems to be the most pressing of conflicts is my advice, so explain for me how Citadel Scenery Models interact with the Movement Phase, particularly Battlefield Debris purchased as a Fortification...

PS: - I evoke my Rule granted permission to mount them on suitable bases, now they are legally on bases....

I've covered the movement phase in this thread, both fortification and scenery not purchased as fortifications. They don't move, and you stay an inch away from them.

But I'm curious, humor me before I write a thesis on the movement phase. Let's say you have a tank next to a enemy building, how do you play it? can you move withing 1" of it? can you pivot throughit? can you just move through it, or do you have to go around?

Or instead of the thesis, come down some weekend, I'll buy the beer and we'll work this out over a game

I will wait to find out how you explain away things like 'Models move 6 Inches' and I won't even begin to address the more complicated Rule interactions.

Even though it is against my better judgement, given how answering your questions in the past has led no where given nothing I state will persuade you:
Rule as Written - Both have access to Model Specific Rules, directly for the Tank and through pages of additional Rules for the Building
How I play it - Certain Buildings Rules require the enemy to be able to approach them, so I ignore the 1 inch bubble

I will guess that, after two weeks without this thesis being posted, it will not be forth coming?
Pity, I was really wanting to see how your interpretation would handle granting Terrain access to even the most basic of Model-Specific Rules....

JinxDragon wrote:
I will guess that, after two weeks without this thesis being posted, it will not be forth coming?
Pity, I was really wanting to see how your interpretation would handle granting Terrain access to even the most basic of Model-Specific Rules....

slow day at work?

If I knew you were waiting for it I would have sent you a pm telling you I decided against it. I mainly used it as a lead in to ask you about vehicles driving through buildings to show once again, you claim they're not models, they're not models in the movement phase as that's not one of the counts as clauses, yet you don't seem to want to state 'sure drive through them and no dangerous terrain tests needed' is it because you are still striving to treat them as models?

As I had just posted as to why you can't move your ADL,
"pg 62, unit types, "so far we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry. The movement rules are how infantry moves. Those basic rules get modified for units, there's a chart in the reference section that breaks down how far units can move. so no you can't move your ADL around. "

when you followed up with "How do Citadel Scenery Models interact with the Movement Phase Rules? "

I got the impression you weren't reading anything I typed. I did consider writing one, but there was just to many more important things to do, so I decided against it. Scenery models are not infantry models and have no permission to move. it was going to be a short thesis anyways

Sirlynchmob:
As I stated before in my replies, I have answered all these questions many times in the past but you continue to ignore the answers. Instead you re-purpose the question as if asking it again in a different way changes any of the answers provided to you, or makes the pages of Rules I have referenced disappear. I have stopped playing that little game with you because, outside of a tiny fraction of situations which cause problems for every interpretation, you have found very little in weeks of questioning and grilling on the matter. The answers I have provided in the past still apply, and it has become far more obvious you are not interested in being swayed by pages of Rules being quoted. I treat Buildings as Models because they use all aspects of Transport Vehicle Rules unless otherwise stated, and have pages of Rules that wouldn't exist if you are correct.

I am more interested in having you explain how ever Model specific Rule does not apply to Terrain as there is hundreds of pages to go through but seeing as you are not... I will probably not bother wasting either of our time on this matter further. Needless to say though, when you are left trying to Resolve Rules against something lacking a Profile simply because their common name contains the word 'Model' it might be time to reconsider. Given that the definition at the front of the book is normally enough to convince people that there exists a 'non-model object' category, and from there it isn't difficult to apply that concept as to why Terrain does not interact with the Rules, I will leave that as my final advise on those whom might dig through these archives.

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob:
As I stated before in my replies, I have answered all these questions many times in the past but you continue to ignore the answers. Instead you re-purpose the question as if asking it again in a different way changes any of the answers provided to you, or makes the pages of Rules I have referenced disappear. I have stopped playing that little game with you because, outside of a tiny fraction of situations which cause problems for every interpretation, you have found very little in weeks of questioning and grilling on the matter. The answers I have provided in the past still apply, and it has become far more obvious you are not interested in being swayed by pages of Rules being quoted. I treat Buildings as Models because they use all aspects of Transport Vehicle Rules unless otherwise stated, and have pages of Rules that wouldn't exist if you are correct.

I am more interested in having you explain how ever Model specific Rule does not apply to Terrain as there is hundreds of pages to go through but seeing as you are not... I will probably not bother wasting either of our time on this matter further. Needless to say though, when you are left trying to Resolve Rules against something lacking a Profile simply because their common name contains the word 'Model' it might be time to reconsider. Given that the definition at the front of the book is normally enough to convince people that there exists a 'non-model object' category, and from there it isn't difficult to apply that concept as to why Terrain does not interact with the Rules, I will leave that as my final advise on those whom might dig through these archives.

my final advice.
You do far more with treating buildings as models then the rules you quote allow for. You treat them more like models than I do, as you want them to give up first blood. some of your questions were about rules situations for 6th edition that no longer worked for 7th. Oh I've only pointed out a tiny fraction that's wrong with your interpretation? By my count you're using more house rules than I am.

Every model specific rule? god no, I have better things to do with my time. I could be swayed, but the rules don't support the conclusion you're trying to present, especially while you go out of your way to ignore the conclusion you're presenting. If you want to analyze all usages of the word 'model', while you admit to GW using it in 2 different meanings, you would have to show which meaning is being used for each use of the word model. Which you can't do as you've limited it to the definition for infantry models. This is why I don't buy into your interpretation.

Yes the definition in the front is very convincing "The citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." Like 'citadel scenery models' Are 'citadel scenery models' miniatures? Yep. Are they used to play the game? Yep. Right there, we are told they are referred to as 'models'

I call them models, you treat them as models in all situations, so in the end it's really the exact same conclusion.

Terrain does interact with the rules, the rules have quite a lot to say on the subject.

Well this has been thoroughly argued back and forth and I don't know what more can be done to convince either side any differently.

Im gonna play it as follows though:

Fortifications purchased as part of your army list count as models for the purpose's of scoring (including first blood and holding objectives), but do not count towards kill points in Purge the alien (as they are not considered units). If your army has the ability to infiltrate models, the fortifications can be infiltrated. If your only allowed to infiltrate units however, you cannot.

Fortifications that are just part of the battlefield begin the game neutral and thus do not count towards first blood and holding objectives (although the unit inside them can still claim any objectives within 3" of them).

So, we seem to be about done here.