I believes its permissible to deeptrike a building using the wwp

wwp "If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserve."

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. p.112
"if a unit enter a building they immediately capture and claim that building"p.112

"moving into a building works the same as embarking and disembarking a vehicle" ..."all of the normal rules apply" p.110 bottom left hand pargraph
your combined unit and ic mounted in building makes it a unit because its then claimed.( this happens in reserve)
the 'combined reserve units' section brb p.135 right hand column allows the wwp carrying character to be embarked in reserve.

It then gains the deep strike rule from the wwp and the rest is history.



this may not have been an intended consequence but i think it is undeniably allowed under the rules.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/617823.page

There are two more, but both link back to this one.

The short and skinny of it is:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
DeathReaper,
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.
- Fortification, one of many Rules with just that title but this one is just above Deployment Zones.

While the Reserve rule is written in the normal format of Models and Units, the above Rule makes it very clear that Fortifications have access to these very Rules. To deny them access to Reserves, because they are not Models and therefore they do not meet the requirement to be a Unit, would be exactly the same as stating they can not Deploy because the Standard Deployment Method only allows Units to be placed as part of Deployment. Of course, we state that Reserves are not a Deployment Rule but that would be some mighty fine hair-splitting worthy of Rule Lawyering at it's finest. Of course, it would raise all sorts of secondary questions, such as why use the word Deploy within the Rule and why it is found smack bang in the Rules discussing Deployment. It also lead to some very broken situations, such as what happens if the Fortification does not fit in the Deployment Zone from a Rule as Written perspective now it can't enter Reserves either.

Putting something into reserves is not deploying it.

So it does not have access to the reserve rules as they are for units only, and you do not deploy into reserve.

"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. " (Preparing for battle chapter, Reserves section, Preparing Reserves sub-section).

they are kept or held back in reserve, not deployed into reserve.

What you quoted only works for deploying the fortifications and does not work for keeping them into reserve.

buildings in 7th are treated as units
brb p.112 top of right hand column
"A the stat of the game all building that are taken as part of a a players army are 'claimed'."
"A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army."

buildings are units that's undeniable

We all ready had one on this. The answer is the same. No you cannot. If you do not deploy the building it is lost.

If you are talking about the preparing reserves section on page p.135 that only applies to things that cant be deployed in the initial deployment phase, and then have no means of getting onto the table but like a drop pod the building can be later deployed using the deep strike usr.

It is a 7th the deployment phase for them is in the preparing for battle section. U deploy them after deployment zones are set but before terrain. If you do not deploy them at this stage they are gone. You can choose to deploy them any where on the board. As neutral terran or what have you. But if they are not deployed then they are gone because buildings do not move and they do not have deep strike on them. You can argue all you want. We went over this less then 2 weeks ago. Good luck finding anyone to let you do it any other way. Thanks. If you are playing a pre set board you have the TO come move the terrain the minimal distance needed so you can deploy it.

They are deployed as other units
p.130 bottom left hand column.
"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 e the same deployment rules as the other models."
( it can be put in reserves if the mission allows)
(people often get this wrong and use the 6th edition rule for deploying building)

It is given the deep strike special rule buy the wwp so it it not destroyed because it can not deploy latter.

If they are considered as units, yes you can Deep Strike them using WWP.

I'm glad we finally found something nice for the WWP

AV14 DS No scatter fire dragons ? Atarimaeda !

The Reserve Rule is not a Deployment Rule.

While it is true that Fortifications are deployed using the same Deployment Rules as the rest of the Army, many people are assuming that Reserves are a Deployment Rule. The Rules for Reserves are actually found in the Mission section of the book, making them a Mission Rule, as it is entirely up to the Mission if we have access to Reserves or not. As they are not part of the default Rules for Deployment, the line that keeps getting quoted fails to grant Fortification access to these Rules and they do not have the ability to enter Reserves. That is only reserved for Units, and yes that pun was intended.

Claimed Buildings are a little more trickier as they do become full fledged Units, why they do not just make Buildings a Unit-Type is past my understanding, but there is a Timing issue to be addressed. Claimed Buildings only become Units at the Start of the Game, so one needs to proven that the Game has Started before placing Units into Reserve. There is some grounds for that, the book does show that Deployment and the Start of Game are linked without detailing how, but the same lack of detail makes it impossible to prove for sure that Reserves is after the Start of the Game. Made all the more difficult as the book has clauses like this, move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game begins, which suggest that Reserves are also done before before Buildings are Claimed.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/617823.page

Multiple pages on this very topic.

@ jinxdrgon: Just to be clear your argument against is based on the fact the phrase "the start of the game" is ambiguous?

It is reasonable point, But By your own admission this phrase is used inconstantly throughout the brb and has little meaning outside any particular context in which its used

therefore i don't believe the fact that it is a ambiguous phrase can be used for or against the argument.

@ Fireraven Thanks I just checked it out but that thread is so full of arguments based on 6th ed rules and off topic comments that it is not really helpful.

IMO if there was anything to be considered WRT game start, you could still place the fortification, Fire Dragons and Archon, and then WWP on T1, right ?

Then House rule it. At your house you can play how ever you like. But no one is Going to let you do it at any event that knows 40k. You wwp a bastion or a fortress on the the field there going to go wtf are you doing. Then quickly tell you to pack your stuff exit is that way.

Sunhero wrote:

"A the stat of the game all building that are taken as part of a a players army are 'claimed'."
"A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army."

Page 17. "before the game begins"
Examples are generating warlord traits and psychic powers.
These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle.


IMO, if before deploying for battle is everything that is "Before the Game Begins" than anything that happens when you are deploying for battle cannot also be before the game.
Without any other reference to the start of the game, I'm inclined to believe that right after you generate powers and warlord traits, buildings become units and can be held in reserve.

Any other rule book references to the start of the game?

Sunhero,
Given that the argument of 'Buildings are Units' requires access to a Rule which has the 'at the Start of the Game' Terminology, it is vital to know when that occurs as part of the debate. Granted that the 'ambitious nature' makes it impossible to actually know, but that was the very point I was trying to make. In order to evoke the Claimed Building Rule to put a Unit into Reserve, it has to be proved that the Reserve Rule triggers after the Claimed Building Rule has triggered. Without the ability to prove that point, the entire speculation lacks 'Rule as Written' support and we will always default to 'illegal' when that occurs.

I would also like to remind you of the existence of Rules which relate to a period between Reserves and Start of Game, which means there is a lot more Rule as Written support for the concept that Reserves happens prior to the Game officially beginning.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
HawaiiMatt,
Take a look at this Rule then:
Special rules that allow an owning player to move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game begins (for example the C’tan Shard power ‘Grand Illusion’)....
- Aerial Support, Flyers

We all agree that the phrase the "start of the game" is used inconstantly, so this inconstancy can not be used against the idea that a building can be put into reserve.

Sunhero wrote:
We all agree that the phrase the "start of the game" is used inconstantly, so this inconstancy can not be used against the idea that a building can be put into reserve.

But the rules for deployment still make Deep Striking a fortification impossible.

Putting something into reserves is not deploying it.

So it does not have access to the reserve rules as they are for units only, and you do not deploy into reserve.

"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. " (Preparing for battle chapter, Reserves section, Preparing Reserves sub-section).

Ergo Buildings can not Deep Strike.

Sunhero, I very much disagree:
Knowing if the Claimed Building Rule triggers before or after Reserves is sort of vital to your concept, so we can not simply overlook this lack of evidence....

If you want to claim that the Start of the Game occurs before any Units are placed into Reserves then you will need to provide me with proof of concept. If the only evidence to support the concept is 'we do not know when the Start of the Game occurs' then I will point to that very statement as the reason why Buildings can not be Reserved. This is a game where permission needs to be granted before an action can be taken, so lacking any Rule that grants clear and defined permission means that action would be illegal by default.

The fact that buildings are units cannot be reasonably under dispute it says so multiple times in the brb p.110 p.112 p.130 p.134

If they are units then they can use the reserve special rule.

Incorrect as the Rule is:
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army.
Prior to the Start of Game there are no Claimed Buildings....

Sunhero wrote:
The fact that buildings are units cannot be reasonably under dispute it says so multiple times in the brb p.112 p.130 p.134

If they are units then they can use the reserve special rule.

Except they do not have access to the Deep Strike rule.

They are considered units when they deploy, but units that go into reserve are kept or held back in reserve, not deployed into reserve.

Fortifications are "set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models."

They can not be held in reserve because they are not units for the purposes of reserve, only for deployment.

p.132 "which ever method you use models" (not units) "must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve." these means that even if a building is not a unit prior to "the start of the game" when ever that may be.
It can still go into reserve.

the goal posts on this are for ever shifting.

I have demonstrated that that a building can be put into reserve, and I its undeniable that it can then be given the deep strike rule by the wwp I really don't think there can much else said.

I under stand that the idea of a deep striking building is ridiculous, and would completely understand any one who refused to allow it. Ether in friendly or competitive play but I think it is undeniably allowed under the rules.

Units (Or models) can go into reserves.

However...

Fortifications are not Models.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (Models and units chapter, Other Important Information section).

What unit type is a fortification?

I'm not going to argue with you that a building bought in your army list is neither a model or a unit that is madness it it must have a model designation surely you must concede that or are you just playing devils advocate .

The Rules define what a Model is, so why must we concede?

Building have a Terrain type, not a Unit type.

Consider this too:
Why would Fortifications need a Rule telling us to Deploy them with the rest of the Army, if they are already Models in the Army and would Deploy regardless?

Fireraven wrote:
You wwp a bastion or a fortress on the the field there going to go wtf are you doing.

"Being awesome."

I just got a great idea instead of the table flip lets do the deep striking fortress that is sand filled. I bet you could stuff that bad boy with enough play sand to get it at least 8-9 plds. and instead of deploying it like normal I'm gonna deep strike it every game because for now on I'm going to run dark eldar as an ally. I think after the first time i drop that sucker on a table and knock ever model over the TO will take notice. O then I'm going to roll for scatter since that is the model I'm gonna drop from 12 inches from the board. And in I scatter I'm gonna hulk smash that bad boy right in the middle of the table. What you guys think ?
Ill never lose a game from that day forward. I will forever be 0-0-1 every match. My new count will be models destroyed. Terrain will get a separate counting system.

My Bad WWP does not scatter will have to just make sure I place it securely the first time after all it should not move.

JinxDragon wrote:
The Rules define what a Model is, so why must we concede?

That is so irrelevant.

The building is treated as a vehicle when affected by a special rule like WWP.

You can hold buildings in reserve, A fortification taken as part of an army, they use the same deployment rules as other models. As stated in the deployment rules, models must deploy or be held in reserves. Claimed or not, is irrelevant, when the game begins, is irrelevant. It's a fortification in your army, it deploys like a model in your army and may be placed in reserves like the models in your army have the choice of doing.

ergo the OP is correct.

SirLynchMob,
One has to get the Building into Reserves before Web-Way Portal can be applied to it.
As the Reserves Rule is a Mission Rule, and not as Special Rule, your quoted section does not apply...

JinxDragon wrote:
SirLynchMob,
Reserves is not a Special Rule, it is a Mission Rule.

Do you have a point? That statement is not applicable in any way. Fortifications deploy like models in your army, models in your army may be placed in reserves.

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
SirLynchMob,
Reserves is not a Special Rule, it is a Mission Rule.

Do you have a point? That statement is not applicable in any way. Fortifications deploy like models in your army, models in your army may be placed in reserves.

Fortifications deploy.

Models who are kept in reserve have not Deployed.

Therefore Fortifications cannot be in reserve.

I have to weigh in on the 'you can' side of this one.

WWP grants a vehicle Deep strike, if the bearer is embarked on it.

Buildings are treated as vehicles for any attacks, effects, special rules or psychic powers unless specifically stated otherwise.

Buildings are units in your army if bought as part of the army.

Placing a unit in Deep Strike Reserve required that the unit has the deepstrike rule and starts the game in reserve

Fortifications taken as part of an army are 'set up with the rest of the army using the same deployment rules as the other models'

Reserves states that you can choose not to deploy a unit, but hold it back for later deployment. There is a clause in event of not being able to deploy a unit, where a unit that cannot move after deployment is destroyed, but the fortification is is not 'unable to be deployed'. It could be deployed, but you opted to hold it back for later deployment instead.

When the unit comes in from Deep Strike reserves it is deployed at that point.


As long as you can then deploy it via the deepstrike successfully i don't see an issue.

Not sure i would actually DO this, but i'm not seeing a block to doing so in the rules, unless there is something i'm missing?

I would like to see any rules backing a claim buildings are treated as a vehicle for any rule. Also can you define the transport capacity for the building as well.

Battlefield terrain section

under Attacking Buildings

'When determining if a building can be targetted by a shooting attack or psychic power, charged and fought in close combat or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise '

Deep Strike is a special rule.


Transport capacity is generally on the building datasheet.

'Building size and Hull Points

Just like a transport Vehicle, bildings have a Transport Capacity and a number of hull points ... '


Building Size Chart

Small - 10 models - hull pts 3
Medium - 20 modesl - hull pts 4
large - 30 models - hull points 5

All right one part down. Now you are saying if I target a unit on a building. Example Shrouding where all freindly units within 6" get shrounded this will include a fortress of redemption if the psyker is on it? Or if I cast invisibility on a unit on same fortification they do as well?
If so I'm thinking perfect timing , invisibility, and shrouding on a fortress. O ya then I can wwp it as well?

The unit and the Building are seperate units.

If there is a power that targets all units in an area (such as a Nova power) then yes, they will also affect the buildings, as they are specified as units.

Buildings can be targeted by any power that can target a vehicle. People on the battlements are targetted as if they are on the upper levels of a ruin, and are seperate from the building itself.

Invisibility targets a single friendly unit. It would not protect the building unless that was the unit you chose as your target, and the building was claimed by your forces. It would protect the building, but not anyone on the battlements.

If the building was an enemy unit (claimed by the opponent) it would be firing snap shots at your invisible unit, as it would be affected in the same way as an enemy vehicle would be.


** edit for caveat**

If your psyker is embarked inside the building , as when embarked on a vehicle, he can't manifest anything but witchfires. He would have to be up on the battlements.

Also the FOR is not a single building, but four connected ones. You could onyl affect one with Invisibility at a time, without multiple castings. something that affected all units within 6'' if you are actually within 6'' of all four buildings (such as if you are standing on the walkway annex) would still work fine.




**** edit to answer your edit ***

Perfect Timing on a fortress is no go - it only affects the psyker, not the building. Invisibility could work on one of the buildings. Shrouding could work also, as long as you are on the battlements.

There you just said it. Seperate units NOT the same. You cannot have it one way for rule X and ignore the same rule you are using to say you can use WWP.

Now does the Archon /unit immediately mishap?
Which is what is defined as a model coming in on top of a freindly model. In this case the building clearly is.

Have you read the WWP rules? I'm assuming not, or you wouldn't have posted your last.

The building counts as a transport Vehicle, on which you are embarked.

WWP states that :

'The model, and any unit it has joined or embarked on has the deep strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserves'

This is the whole point of the debate.

You embark in a building, as a transport vehicle

It is a unit which has been embarked on, and has been granted Deep Strike by being embarked on by the bearer of the WWP.

Yes I have. Also it should be noted all fortification and building data sheets say. Terrain Type not unit.

Nice collection. Doesn't prove you actually read the rule though.

Then why are you arguing that the Archon, his unit and the building have to be the same unit? They don't.

The Archon is embarked in a building that is treated as a vehicle for special rules.

WWP grants the building Deep Strike (and treats it as a vehicle whilst doing do.).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fireraven wrote:
Yes I have. Also it should be noted all fortification and building data sheets say. Terrain Type not unit.

It should also be noted that claimed buildings are UNITS

I quote.

'A claimed building is a unit in the controlling player's army.'

Sirlynchmob,
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.

Where in the Rules for Deployment do I locate the instructions for putting a Unit into Reserves?
Hint: You don't find them as part of the Standard Deployment Method, they are located in the section detailing Mission Rules....

Ascalam,
For the Building to be targeted by the Web Way Portal it has to be placed into Reserves first, before the Archon can Embark into it. This is why it needs to be shown that Fortifications can be placed into Reserves before all else, for without that important step there is no way to apply Deep Strike or the Web-Way Portal effects to the Building in question. So while Claimed Buildings are Units, no one is denying that, it still needs to be proven that Fortifications become Claimed before Models are placed into Reserves. As we have reference to Rules which trigger between a Unit being Deployed / Placed into Reserve and the Start of the Game itself, it is looking impossible to apply any Claimed Building status to the Fortification until it is already too late for it to be useful.

The reserve rule in mission rules determines whether or not you have to deploy all of your units at the beginning of the match.

If you are playing a mission which allows reserves, you may place any units you wish in reserves.

Fortifications are units.

Preparing reserves

'when deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them in reserve to arrive later.' - The building is following the same deplyment rules for the mission as the other models, in that it is given the option to use the reserves rule or deply directly.

Arriving from reserve

'When reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it..'

Deep strike

'Roll for arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for reserves, and then deploy them as follows...'

Also

'A transport vehicle with Deep Strike (which the building counts as) may deep strike regardless of whether it's passengers have deep strike or not'

There is no requirement to move once deepstriking from reserves, though a building will likely have a hard time finding a place to land, even with a WWP

Fortifications are not by default Models so they can not be Units, this is why they needed a Rule to grant them access to the Deployment Rules in the first place....

The only type of Fortifications which are Units are all Claimed Buildings, for they have a Rule which literally states 'it is a Unit.'
Show me where it states that Buildings are claimed prior to Reserves / Deployment....

So now I can put multiple units on my fortress and deep strike them all in with it. Yeehaa I can have fun with that one.

Honestly though, I do wonder about this:
Line is quoted showing Fortifications have access to Deployment Rules
Line is re-quoted, highlighting Deployment Rules for Reserves are a Mission Rule
Counter argument is that Fortifications didn't need the quoted line to gain access to Reserves as they are Units....

Can people not realize the flaw of trying to say that Fortifications are already Units, and so gain access to Reserve Rules anyway, without realizing it null and voids not just their previous argument but the whole requirement of Count As Rules to begin with?
It makes no sense for there to be pages of 'counts as a Model' Rule's that exist surrounding Fortifications if they where already Models....

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob,
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.

Where in the Rules for Deployment do I locate the instructions for putting a Unit into Reserves?
Hint: You don't find them as part of the Standard Deployment Method, they are located in the section detailing Mission Rules....

Ascalam,
For the Building to be targeted by the Web Way Portal it has to be placed into Reserves first, before the Archon can Embark into it. This is why it needs to be shown that Fortifications can be placed into Reserves before all else, for without that important step there is no way to apply Deep Strike or the Web-Way Portal effects to the Building in question. So while Claimed Buildings are Units, no one is denying that, it still needs to be proven that Fortifications become Claimed before Models are placed into Reserves. As we have reference to Rules which trigger between a Unit being Deployed / Placed into Reserve and the Start of the Game itself, it is looking impossible to apply any Claimed Building status to the Fortification until it is already too late for it to be useful.

Fireraven seems to be trying to.

I see the Reserve rule as a rule granting additional deployment options to your army, which you can use in any mission that allows Reserves.

The mission grants the baility to deploy or to enter reserves. Not arguing there. What i will have to disagree on is that this precludes the building being able to use these deployment rules like any other unit in the army. There is little to quote on either side, ruleswise, on whether the Mission Rules are a seperate category defining the deployment options, or whether they replace them. We may have to agree to disagree on that point, until GW feels like dropping us a randomly picked answer.

I see it as follows: The fortification, if taken as part of the army, is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as the other models.

Under Deployment

Reserves states that you can choose not to deploy some of your units, keeping them in Reserves to arrive late. As buildings are units you can opt not to deploy them, and put them in reserve per the rule. The rule specifying that they are affected by special rules (but not listing Mission Rules) is the rule that defines that you treat them as vehicles for most effects. The Reserves rule does not make this distinction. All it requires is that the Unit be part of your army, which the building is.

quote : ' When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them in reserve to arrive later' - this doesn't preclude buildings as far as i can see. The following sentence dealing with units that are impossible to deploy being put in reserve, or destroyed if unable to move, is not relevant because you could have deployed the building but chose not to, rather than it being impossible to do so.

If this is so, then the building (as a unit) could enter reserves, and deep strike out of them.

The only problem is that GW is studiously adverse to writing clear rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fireraven wrote:
So now I can put multiple units on my fortress and deep strike them all in with it. Yeehaa I can have fun with that one.

You would need 4 webway portals. FOR is FOUR buildings, not one. You would also need all 4 to be available on the same turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Fortifications are not by default Models so they can not be Units, this is why they needed a Rule to grant them access to the Deployment Rules in the first place....

The only type of Fortifications which are Units are all Claimed Buildings, for they have a Rule which literally states 'it is a Unit.'
Show me where it states that Buildings are claimed prior to Reserves / Deployment....

'At the start of the game , all buildings that were taken as part of a player's army are 'claimed' by the owning player'

Show me a rule that they are NOT claimed prior to reserves/deployment?

As to what they mean by the start of the game, that can be argued both ways. The start of the game, for me, is when you roll off to see which deployment zone you have, which is prior to deciding what goes into reserve etc.

I doubt you will concur though, so this will go around in circles

Yep 1 multi part building. But I was thinking to small. I think all three Hq's that have WWP. And the macro gun and the vortex missle strong points. Forget fort. Lets go balls deep D Weapons. Then ally some Eldar for the ignore cover and shroud on the buildings and invisibility for the units embarked.

Multipart buildings are still multiple buildings for the sake of WWP, as you can't be embarked on all 4 at the same time. Could be hilarious if only 2 come in on a turn...

Aquila are 2 buildings IIRC.

I'm arguing for RAW curiousity here. I have no intention of actually trying it, but the rules may or may not allow it, depending on how you define the rules involved.

My guess is that GW will say no-go if they ever get around to it

Yep but ill just put them on the gun/missle buildings only. So that part only will materialize. The best part.

Does bring up the question whether you can partially materialise the building. Technically, you could

Could he interesting ha ing a FOR deepstruck in four separate locations, controlled by the remote fire link in one building...

Just a quick two before bed:

If your Rule Support relies on 'there is no rule preventing it' then you have lost every Game because there is no Rule preventing me from declaring that all your past games are null and void. The point of the previous statement is that we are debating a gaming system based around Written Rules, which are designed around the concept of requiring permission to perform X before being able to perform X. If a player wishes to do X, in this case claim a Building is 'Claimed' prior to the Start of the Game, then it is the requirement of that player to provide a Rule granting them permission to do so. So I am not required to prove your negative, you are required to prove that a building is Claimed prior to the point in the timeline the Rules actually state they are claimed.

The reason the Claimed Building Rule has not swayed me is there is ample evidence that Reserve's happen before Buildings are granted Unit Status
The reason the Fortification Deployment Rule has not swayed me is because there is ample evidence that Reserves are not a Deployment Rule

Bonus point that I keep getting ignored over every time the whole 'Fortifications are Not a Unit' debate comes up:
The quoted Rule does happen to exists for a reason: To grant Fortifications access to Deployment, something they must not of had access to prior. This is not the only Rule of it's type either, buildings have no less then three pages worth of 'count as' Rules. All of these Rules are designed simply to ensure Buildings behave identically to an Enemy Model for 90% of the Rules in the book. There would be no point to these Rules if Buildings where already Units, and we wouldn't need three pages of 'count as Rules' as some sort of twisted reminder either, so I have to conclude that their very existence is evidence of something. That leads me to the conclusion that Fortifications are simply not Models to begin with.

If you do not accept that reason for this Rules existence, why then would this Rule and pages like it even exist in the first place?

p.132 "which ever method you use models" (not units) "must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve."

the building does not have to be a unit before "the start of the game" whenever that is to be put in reserve right?

I think we mostly agree on that now.

I don't think you can deep strike a multipart building though would be cool.

To be honest I do not care anymore. If it ever comes up I know what my statement will be. And if the person does not like it they can pack there models and leave. I dought this will ever come up. Common sense will win over in the end. I would want you to go to any GT and do this. I wish you luck.

So, as summary, nobody has a valid argument against the WWP transporting buildings ?

And Fireraven, this is YMDC, not how you would like the rules to be. Common sense says you can't take buildings as part of your army either, but it's there.

Sunhero wrote:
p.132 "which ever method you use models" (not units) "must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve."

the building does not have to be a unit before "the start of the game" whenever that is to be put in reserve right?

I think we mostly agree on that now.

I don't think you can deep strike a multipart building though would be cool.

Maybe the digital version has different wording, but mine reads Units, not models.

Digital version page numbers are all fethed up, as all 3 books are one book, but i assume you are looking at this

Preparing reserves

When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve'

'At the start of your second turn, you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve – these are known as Reserve Rolls. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn. If the roll is less than 3 it remains in Reserve and is rolled for again next turn.
At the start of your third turn, roll for any units remaining in Reserve. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn. If the roll is less than 3, it remains in Reserve and automatically arrives at the start of your fourth turn.
Some special rules can modify the roll required for a unit to arrive from Reserve. Regardless of the modifier(s), a natural roll of a 1 always means that the unit in question remains in Reserve.
When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move. '

The rules refer to them as Units, not models. Unless you are looking at a different part of the book than i am?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, i'm going to lay down my logic chain here and if someone could tell me if i'm being logically inconsistent? Not your-interpretation-of the rules inconsistent, but consistent within my interpretation.

Then feel free to rip me to shreds rules-wise

'Before the game begins

During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens ‘before the game begins’. Examples of such events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle.'

Rolling for deployment zone and who deploys first could either be a before the game begins thing or a At the start of the game thing. For simplicity let's lump them in with the above.

The start of the game must therefore be at the beginning of the Deployment step, as Before the Game Begins is always before deployment.

At the start of the game, all claimed buildings are units in your army.

Units can be placed in reserve if the mission allows it. The claimed buildings are units, and so can be put in reserve at this step.

For Deep striking them back out it does require a Model to be placed from the unit. Normally a sticking point as buildings aren't models, but terrain.

However, they are treated as vehicles for special rules, which Deep Strike is.

They are therefore model type Vehicle while deep-striking. They have a statline (BS, AV etc) so the usual argument that they are not models does not apply for deep striking them.

1/. Is this logically consistent.

2/. Is there any rule stating that buildings have to be deployed, as opposed to being put in reserves voluntarily? They cannot be involuntarily put in reserves, as they will be destroyed, but that clause doesn't cover a willing decision to do so.

3/. Is there any rule stating that you cannot deep strike an immobile transport vehicle?

Ascalam,
What about Rules which talk about a period of time after putting a Unit into Reserves but before the Start of Game, such as Aerial Support?


Sunhero,
Fortifications are not Units or Models by default, if you want to play that they are prepare for me to do things like:
Join a Independent Character to a defense line so all wounds are allocated to a 'model' without a Wound Characteristic
Move a physical wall in front of my troops to block line of sight, seeing I have a lot of indirect fire
Demand that you stay 1 inch away from all of my buildings and fortifications, including the ones you are meant to be able to shoot back at me by being in base contact with
and so forth....

@Ascalam no i think you are looking at a different section its just after it gives the three different deployment methods and above a red box outlining standard deployment method.
beginning of the third paragraph under DEPLOYMENT heading.

I think you have it nailed down even with out that paragraph to support you argument




I think we can mostly agree now that it is allowed but its pretty crazy

would love to see some custom webway bastions and bunkers could be very cool and very uncool with just the gw terrain

Sunhero wrote:
I think we can mostly agree now that it is allowed but its pretty crazy

No, not at all allowed, because of the reasons I posted earlier.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Sunhero wrote:
I think we can mostly agree now that it is allowed but its pretty crazy

No, not at all allowed, because of the reasons I posted earlier.

Maybe address his points and somebody will listen to you.

What about I, did I not address his points more then once?
When DeathReaper and I both state that there is no 'agreement' on any matter then maybe there is some grounds to say there is no agreement....


Claimed Buildings does not apply - Start of Game occurs some point after Reserves. There are even mention of a Rule designed to pull a Unit out of Reserve, triggering before the game begins, within the Basic Rulebook itself. Aerial Support, or whatever it was called, exists to prevent such Rules from functioning on Flyers because they are not designed to be pulled out of Reserves in this fashion. Others simply trigger prior to the Beginning of the Game while targeting a Unit already in Reserves itself, such as Independent Characters when they Joining Units already in Reserves.

While we might not know exactly when the 'start of game' occurs... doesn't look like it happens before Reserves, so no Claimed Buildings.

JinxDragon wrote:
Ascalam,
What about Rules which talk about a period of time after putting a Unit into Reserves but before the Start of Game, such as Aerial Support?


Sunhero,
Fortifications are not Units or Models by default, if you want to play that they are prepare for me to do things like:
Join a Independent Character to a defense line so all wounds are allocated to a 'model' without a Wound Characteristic
Move a physical wall in front of my troops to block line of sight, seeing I have a lot of indirect fire
Demand that you stay 1 inch away from all of my buildings and fortifications, including the ones you are meant to be able to shoot back at me by being in base contact with
and so forth....

All Apples and Oranges.

A Defense line is not a Building.
Buildings count as vehicles for special rules.
Independent Character is a special rule (page 166)
Independent Character says you cannot join vehicles.
Building rules say that they are Immobile.
You cannot move immobile units. You cannot join Vehicles.
You do need to stay 1" away from Claimed Buildings, unless you're assaulting them.

HawaiiMatt,
You have over-looked something important in your counter:
We are talking about Fortifications being Models by default, not simply isolating the discussion to Buildings. If we are to accept the conclusion that all purchased Fortifications are Models / Units by default, in order to grant the Unit status to a Building prior to the Claimed Rule triggering, then a Defense Line segment or Gun Emplacement are also Models / Units by default. Of course, this completely ignore the fact the only Rules which have been quoted on how a Model is defined all point to Fortifications failing to meet the criteria to be considered Models. However, that line of argument as to why Fortifications are not Model's is always simply ignored by the people who want to Deep Strike a Building. So I figured it would be a little easier to point out that every other Rule in the Game breaks completely when applied to non-model entities, such as a Defense Line, so best not try and grant Fortifications Model / Unit status by default or else I will exploit it to break the game past the point of being playable.

Should one want to limit Unit / Model status to just Buildings they would need a Rule stating that Buildings, and only Buildings, are Units.
One such Rule exists, but that Rule grants the Unit status to a Building after Reserves....

Isn't there a rule somewhere about models that are unable to move while in reserve are destroyed? I would think that rule would prevent this kind of nonsense.

buildings in 7th are treated as units
brb p.112 top of right hand column
"A the stat of the game all building that are taken as part of a a players army are 'claimed'."
"A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army."

They are deployed as other units
p.130 bottom left hand column.
"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 e the same deployment rules as the other models."
( it can be put in reserves if the mission allows)

When do you decide if a unit is going to be inside a transport while being held in reserves? Is that before the start of the game? Because if it is, then you can't put the character into the building because it is not a unit in your army until "At the stat of the game".

If the 'start of the game' is before declaring reserves then all is well but I'm pretty sure that isn't until after deployment/reserves.

models that cannot fit on the table and are unable to move are destroyed instead of being put in reserves. It's a result of them not being able to be deployed during deployment and not one of being in reserves, technically you can hold immobile things in reserves.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Sunhero wrote:
I think we can mostly agree now that it is allowed but its pretty crazy

No, not at all allowed, because of the reasons I posted earlier.

Maybe address his points and somebody will listen to you.

I have, in my posts in this very thread


JinxDragon has as well.

I'm going to leave this discussion to others i think.

I will get some popcorn and watch though

Too busy for the next few days to be on enough to be worth it

Deathreaper,
Just wanted you to know it feels strange when you and I both post supporting arguments in the same thread... not bad, just... strange.

One last go to convince the unbelievers.
I am going to go a crazy round about way since the absurdly obvious argument that a building is a model doesn't seam to convince you, and if if you cant accept that i don't think you are listening to reason on this topic.


A unit embarked a building claims it instantly turning it into a unit in the controlling player army p.112
(never mind the fact that is already claimed automatically buy the player who brought it in his list for some you reason you don't like that.)

When a unit is put in deep strike reserves it has to have the deep strike special rule or be embanked upon a unit that does.

Now that act of putting a unit into deep strike reserves must be allowed to a happen simultaneously with putting it with the character that grants deep strike or even a vehicle that grants deep strike, as these thing are declared simultaneously and must be allowed to do so,
or a squad with out it.
eg fire dragoons could not be placed in deep strike reserve using the wwp and the device would not work on any infantry squad that did not already have the deep strike rule .

Sunhero wrote:

A unit embarked a building claims it instantly turning it into a unit in the controlling player army p.112
(never mind the fact that is already claimed automatically buy the player who brought it in his list for some you reason you don't like that.)

How do you embark into a building before the game when it is not on the board? Normally, you deploy the building first and it is a piece of terrain, allowing you to put models in it. Then it is claimed AFTER the game starts and AFTER deployment. It is not a unit before that point.

Sunhero,
Because it is one of my most favorite things to post on this site:
The General Principal of Sequencing makes it illegal to Resolve two Rules simultaneously.

It is not possible to simply state that we are resolving the Rules for Embarking at the same time we are putting something into Reserve. Instead of being allowed to make these choices, we have been presented with a method for determining exactly which Rule goes first in all situation where two Rules are triggering at the very same time. This means we would need specific instructions stating that Rule X can be Resolved simultaneously as we Resolve Rule Y, very detailed instructions on how the two Rules would be interacting while doing so, before we can accept any argument that involves Resolving something simultaneously. Without that, the best we can do is pause the Resolution of a Rule in order to complete a secondary Rule which has specific instructions to trigger at that time... then resolve the second Rule to completion before returning to the original.

This creates a problem in your theory:
Until the Unit has Resolved the Rules related Embarking, nothing has Embarked
Without an Embarked Unit, the Claimed Rule does not trigger
Without the Claimed Rule, the Building does not get Unit status
Without Unit Status the Building can not be placed into Reserves

Even if you could find some sort of 'interrupt' allowing Reserves to trigger half way through Embarking, which you will not cause the two are completely unrelated, it still requires the Rules for Embarking to be completed first....

If what you stated was the case the the wwp doesn't work on vehicles or squads with out the deep strike rule because they need it to placed in deep strike reserve.

so you argument comes down to the fact that the wwp doesn't work at all which is plainly false.

Where in the book does it state we have permission to ignore the Rules if we encounter a situation where they can not be rationally applied?

Let us dissect the actual Web-Way Portal as it was posted previously:
"If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserve.
As part of Trigger for this Rule is ... is in Reserves ... it is impossible for this Rule to be Resolved at any point prior to the Model being placed into Reserve.

The possible timing issue does nothing to change what the Written Rules themselves state, and as we are debating if the Rules allow you permission to do X the existence of the problem is itself evidence to the answer of 'No.' The very best one could hope is an 'Authors Intent' argument, because it is very obvious the Authors intended for this Rule to do something, but those arguments are always going to be bias towards what we desire and not what the Author desires. Take this very topic as an example, who is going to accept the argument that the Authors intended for this one piece of war-gear to allow a Building to be placed into Reserves? The most likely rewrite agreed on by two opponents would be the following:

If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon may Arrive by Deep Strike. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if Arriving by Deep Strike.

So yours saying the wwp doesn't work?

If yes then you have reasoned your self into a corner and their no point discussing it further.

There's a lot of rules in 40K that "don't work".

Indeed Ghas, indeed,
Or do people need to be remind that, in 6th Edition, any Model which did not have physical eyes was unable to Shoot or Assault?

Part of this Forums existence is to discuss the possibility of a Written Rule not functioning because it was so poorly Written it does not fit into the Rules themselves. It is possible that this is one such case, I will review the Rules again to see if the timing created with the Deep Strike Special Rule can be resolved without needing 'House Rules' but it might be required at this point. However, even if it does require us to evoke 'the most important Rule' with our opponents, the Authors Intent argument would still have to be something really good to allow Buildings to enter Reserves. I think most people would agree that the Authors never intended, if they even thought on, a Building being placed into Reserves in order to gain access to a second Rule which would then allow it to Deep Strike onto the field via a Third....

So if you want to take this to an Authors Intent Argument I have the following reply:
It is obvious the Authors Intended for a Model with this piece of War-gear to allow themselves, any Joined Unit and their Transport to Arrive by Deep Strike.
That does not prove that the Authors intended for a Model with this piece of War-gear to pull a Building into Reserves in order to make it into a Deep Striking Transport....

So your using what you persevere as a loop whole that does not allow the wwp to function to argue against deep striking building you can see why that's no a convincing argument right?
just as if you argued that wraith guard could not shoot in 6th would be similarly unconvincing.

regardless its has been an interesting argument and you argued the opposite case well and refined my argument in the process.

unless you have another reason why it's not aloud I am pretty convinced at this stage that is permissible.

However I absolutely agree with you that its silly though i think it would be cool if some one made a cool dark eldar webway tower that protruded into real space.
I would probably never have the balls to try it though unless it becomes generally accepted or I have discussed it with my opponent or TO though.

no, jinx is saying the WWP probably doesnt work RAW, but he believes it to work RAI.


He does not however believe RAI allows you to deep strike a building.


I and many others do not as well.

I do agree that a building counts as an immobile vehicle once the game begins (at the start of turn 1), but until then, it is not a model and thus cannot be held in reserve.

Dangit well there goes all my hopes and dreams. No wwp the micro stronghold or vortex missles. :( Good thing I did not go out and buy all those models. While I was hoping I could knock the dust off all those buildings dangit. I guess GW does not get my money this time on those Dark Eldar models I was going to have to buy because they force me to.

Sunhero,
It is the Basic Rules themselves which have made it impossible to put a Building into Reserves, they have nothing to do with the Web-Way Portal itself....
Put it this way: If a Tau player wanted to put a Fortress of Redemption into Reserves, what Rule would they evoke in order to do so?

There may very well be a curious self-contained Timing Paradox within the Web-Way Portal Rule, I will review that later as I mentioned, but let us assume that the paradox does exist. The existence of any paradox only proves that the Rule does not function as currently Written, it does not provide any evidence as to how the Rule is designed to function. Therefore, the existence of the paradox can only be used to support the obvious argument of 'Rule is broken, try again later' responses. All other arguments fall under the banner of 'Authors intent,' and all one can try to do at that time is convince others that their view into the mind of the Author is more likely to be.

If you wish to have an Authors Intent argument please answer the following question questions for me:
Why would 'The Authors want us to Deep Strike Buildings' be more valid then 'The Authors intent was to allow a Unit already in Reserves to now Arrive by Deep Strike?'

I don't think there is a RAW problem with a normal wwp drop or a building drop but i agree with you on RAI.

That is probably related to this question:
Do you consider Fortifications to already be Models?

Yep has a profile so is a model like first page of the book. (just checked top of page 9)


But if you disagre with that
looked it up page 17 says if its before the game roll of for it or the player whose turn it is decides. so you embark your unit in building before turning it into a unit before putting it into deep strike reserve

And in the paragraph above that it says "before the game begins" are things that happen before the deployment phase suggesting that the deployment phase is the beginning of the game in which case that would end the argument.
otherwise you would have to roll of for it.

pretty cool skipped that part of the book when i first got 7th because i assumed it would be the same as 6th.

Sunhero wrote:
Yep has a profile so is a model like first page of the book. (just checked top of page 9)

Not from what I can see. From 'Models & Units':

To reflect all the differences, each model has it's own characteristic profile.

A few pages over we see an example of a characteristic profile for non-vehicle models. In the 'Vehicles' section of the rules we see an example of a vehicle's characteristic profile. Battlefield terrain does not have a characteristic profile, instead it has a 'datasheet'

Sunhero wrote:
So yours saying the wwp doesn't work?

If yes then you have reasoned your self into a corner and their no point discussing it further.

It works fine, just not with buildings.

Sunhero,
Models also require a Unit Type, so what is the Unit Type of a Fortification?

Then there is this big issue with the concept that Fortifications are Models by default: Basic Rules, as in every Rule found in the Movement - Shooting - Assault Phases, applies to all Models. For a Building it is not much of a big issue, they have pages of other Rules designed to mimic these Basic Rules already, but for other Fortifications it does make a huge difference. If we are to accept that Fortification are Models by default, then we lack the ability to restrict access to any Model-specific Rule unless it states 'not-for-fortifications within it.' This would mean a great number of Rules which only function if they are applied to a Model with the correct Unit Type would have to apply to every Fortification.

Example:
Buildings have a Rule preventing them from moving... Defense Lines do not.


As for the rest of your post:
The Embarking Process itself requires us to complete a few more actions then simply stating that the Unit has Embarked. One such requirement would be to be within 2 inches of an access point, something that can only be verified if the Embarking Unit and Fortification are already 'in play.' The act of Deploy the Building onto the Table, in order to allow access to the access point itself, would render it impossible to place the Building into Reserves afterwards. The act of placing it into Reserves requires it to have access to a Unit-Specific Rule prior to when the Rules state access has been granted.

Therefore a Unit can not legally obey the Rules for Embarked before the Building is placed into Reserves.

Its interesting if you check the terrain data sheet section it calls buildings and non-building fortification models multiple times i think this would allow you to not deploy things like defense line by putting them into reserve where they would automatically be destroyed because they can't deploy.

also do you not believe that paragraph suggest that the game starts in the deployment phase

does a claimed building a have a unit type and do you think it is a model.

i think you would agree that thee wwp works when embarked on a vehicle with out resorting to rai.
the timing would follow the same process

first combine and embark unit then put it in reserve.

An an assault cannon has 'assault' in it's name, but it doesn't make it an assault weapon. They're 'models' in that they're "small copies of something", but by a rules definition, they're not 'models'.

If i show in the book where call them models and you say thats just a name what else do you want.

@jinx dragon Do you not think the 2nd paragraph from the bottom on page 17 suggests that the deployment phase is the start of the game.
( rereading that paragraph it says events that happen "before the game begins" happen before the deployment phase. Doesn't implicitly suggest the deployment phase is the beginning of the game)

You've yet to prove that they're using the game term instead of the term that means "small copies of something". Provide something that proves that they're 'models' in a rules sense, because we've shown you multiple times where they lack certain requirements for them to be considered models according to the rules.

Sunhero,
I also bring your attention to this one again:
Special rules that allow an owning player to move one or more of their units out of Reserves after deployment but before the game begins... - Aerial Support, Flyers

This one just flat out requires that a Unit is placed into Reserves before Rules which trigger at the Start of the Game, then goes on to denies certain Rules from functioning during this period of time. This makes sense as well, for you brought up a big problem yourself: Before / Start of Game Rules can be resolved in the order of a random player. If Reserves and Start of Game are the same point on the Timeline, then all the Rules which trigger at Start of Game also trigger at the very same time as Reserves. Might not seem too bad till you realize this would include any Reserve altering Rules, for there is no period of time between Reserves and Start of Game to resolve them in.

By random chance one might be forced to resolve the Web-Way Portal before any Unit can be placed into Reserves....

On the topic of Citadel Scenery,
Game Workshop produces a line of plastic miniatures that are literally called The Citadel Scenery, and I do despise this fact because it makes it very difficult to understand just what they mean when they refer to 'Scenery Models' in some of the terrain sections of the books. The concept that they are referring to something by a proper name is a good explanation as to why these so called 'models' do not meet the Rule requirements to actually be called Models. Given that a great deal of Rules will suddenly apply to Scenery if we do not accept this concept as accurate, Rules that do not function if applied to anything lacking at least a Profile, we have a massive issue forming. So if you are requiring us to accept them as Models to allow yet anything clearly unintended Rule interactions I will bring you my favourite:-

Defence Line is purchased and deployed in a circle
Each segment is a different Model, it is referenced as X segment pieces after all
Each segment belongs on a single Datasheet, and is purchased for a single slot, so they become Units
Independent Character is deployed in the centre of the segments, 2 inches from one of them
Joins at the Start of the Game

All Default Wounds must be allocated to the closest Model
Segment has no Wound Characteristic to lower to 0
Segment can not be removed as a Casualty
Independent Character is now immune to all default attacks, some Special Rules might still get the actual Model in the ring of non-profiled things....

The Rules simply do not allow Fortification to trigger Model / Unit related Rules, this is why the Authors dedicated pages pages to allow certain Fortifications to act very similar to Models.

Terrain Type. - meduim building.

we have established that a building becomes a unit at the start of the game is it then a unit that does not contain a model? can you target or fire with something some thing that is not a model?
In short a building is a model its insanely obvious.
it says so multiple time in the book.

Sunhero wrote:
we have established that a building becomes a unit at the start of the game is it then a unit that does not contain a model? can you target or fire with something some thing that is not a model?
In short a building is a model its insanely obvious.
it says so multiple time in the book.

The book specifically tells you when to treat it as a unit ( like for shooting). If it doesn't say "treat this building as a unit type: vehicle for the purpose of Reserves" then you can't use it as a unit for reserves or for anything else that isn't listed (like being joined by an Independent Character as Jinx has pointed out.). It's still not a book defined 'Model' during all this unless it specifically says it is.

Zimko wrote:

Sunhero wrote:
we have established that a building becomes a unit at the start of the game is it then a unit that does not contain a model? can you target or fire with something some thing that is not a model?
In short a building is a model its insanely obvious.
it says so multiple time in the book.

The book specifically tells you when to treat it as a unit ( like for shooting). If it doesn't say "treat this building as a unit type: vehicle for the purpose of Reserves" then you can't use it as a unit for reserves or for anything else that isn't listed (like being joined by an Independent Character as Jinx has pointed out.). It's still not a book defined 'Model' during all this unless it specifically says it is.

So I'm going to deploy my Archon and friends in the building on the table. My allied C'tan is going to use his super powers to make D3 friendly units go into reserve.
Once embarked, the building does count as a unit, like the rule book says multiple times. Now that it's a unit, the C'tan can target it with his power.
Now that it's in reserve, the Archon can use the webway rules to allow it to deep strike.
What's better, If said building has an escape hatch, that's placed when you embark, and I think left behind when you C'tan it into reserve.

Really though, the whole point is pretty moot. I haven't seen any tactical use for the building being able to deep strike.

Necrons and Dark Eldar are 'Come The Apocalypse' allies. Therefore the C'tan could not use Grand Illusion on the Dark Eldar since they're not 'friendly units'.

"A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army." p.112
so unless your saying theirs a unit that does not have any models in it then its a building is a model.

plus the fact that on p.183 it refers to buildings as models multiple times would leave me with general impression that a building is a model.

p.132 "which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve." these means that a building can go into reserve.

which means the wwp woks on buildings

Its not complicated when you see the right sections in the book and just chose not to arbitrarily ignore passages in the brb because you don't like the way there written.

Please provide a rules quote that equates unit=model.

p.10 distance between units are always measured to and from the bases of the closest models.

there for all units contain models.

started looking on page 8 I'm shore there are more references

When it tells you to treat a building as a unit, then that's what you do. Normally, units have models but this is an exception.

 Ghaz wrote:
Please provide a rules quote that equates unit=model.

Page 9, under the rule for what a unit is.
A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single powerful model such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be aunit in its own right.

So normally a unit is multiple models, but a unit may also be a single model.

You cant seriously be arguing that a building is not a model.
Its really plain if you look it it objectively and not in the context of this argument that a building is a model.

Sunhero wrote:
You cant seriously be arguing that a building is not a model.
Its really plain if you look it it objectively and not in the context of this argument that a building is a model.

Or, a lone character is not a model, but is a unit.
Which would be awesome, it's make him immune to all kinds of stuff.

A building is not a unit, until the first turn of the game has begun.

This has already been proven in this very thread with quotes by other posters.

When you place the building into reserves, it is not a unit yet and thus does not gain deep strike from the WWP.

Sunhero wrote:
You cant seriously be arguing that a building is not a model.
Its really plain if you look it it objectively and not in the context of this argument that a building is a model.

And if it was, you could provide rules support to back up your claims. As Eihnlazer has pointed out, it has been proven in this thread with actual rules quotes to back them up that it's not a unit until the game has begun. Please provide actual rules quotes to back up your position that it is a unit before the game begins.

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. p.112
your combined unit and ic mounted in building makes it a unit because its then claimed.( this happens in reserve)

It then gains the deep strike rule from the wwp and the rest is history.

I have gone through every stage in minute detail I don't think there's any thing else to say.

And again, where does it say that you can place a non-unit in reserve? It's not a unit until the game begins and its too late to place it in reserve.

p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve."

See im not arguing that it cannot be placed in reserves.


Im arguing that the archon himself cant embark it and Deep strike cannot be conferred to it because it is not a unit until the game begins.

It is obviously a model, but that has no bearing here.

You cannot embark into it until the start of the game when it becomes a unit.

Your combined unit and ic mounted in building makes it a unit because its then claimed.( this happens in reserve)

the 'combined reserve units' section brb p.135 right hand column allows the wwp carrying character to be embarked in reserve.

"if a unit enter a building they immediately capture and claim that building"p.112

"moving into a building works the same as embarking and disembarking a vehicle" ..."all of the normal rules apply" p.110 bottom left hand pargraph

Sunhero, buildings are Models, correct?
Models have a statline, correct?
Models also have a unit type, correct?
What is the building's unit type?

And please note, that "Building" is a type of terrain, not a unit type.

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

So are you at least going to answer my questions? Seeing as how your entire argument is based on buildings being models, you should be able to answer.

infantry units
vehicles
implaced weapons
buildings
are all models

it says so in the brb

I have provided multiple quotes that state that a building is a model.
when a building is claimed is a unit with out a unit type.
and when its just a model its a model with out a unit type.

Sunhero, why are you ignoring my questions? I've asked 4 questions that should be simple to answer, yet instead you just keep posting that buildings are models.

Do models have stat lines, yes or no?
Do models have a unit type, yes or no?
Do buildings have a unit type, yes or no?
If a building has a unit type, what is it?

1.not all models no has an aspect profile in data sheet
2. not all models
3. when a building is claimed is a unit with out a unit type.
and when its just a model its a model with out a unit type.

Sunhero wrote:
1.not all models no
2. not all models
3. when a building is claimed is a unit with out a unit type.
and when its just a model its a model with out a unit type.

So then the rules do not say "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has aprofile that lists the values of its characteristics." nor "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."?

Yep it says that but it also says building are models in black and white so you go with the specific rule rather than the general.

also says on the same page units are made up of models

Except you're not going with a 'specific rule' as there's not a specific rule that says battlefield terrain is a unit despite not have a characteristic profile or a unit type. You're trying to use GWs inconsistent wording to justify that battlefield terrain is a model when by the rules it's not and that the rules Happyjew just quoted simply are not true.

Sunhero,
I will ask you this question as no one has been able to give me a good enough answer for it:
If a Building is already a Model, why did the Authors include pages of Rules all designed to allow Buildings access to Model-specific Rules?

Stronghold Assault, which has all the rules governing buildings...lists them all as...wait for it, not units, but Terrain Types?!? So why is there a question?

Also...common sense please? Don't be dumb by trying to Deep Strike a Bastion...people these days...it's a fun game why try to make it all the more complicated?

HawiiMatt,
Your Reply shows that you now have a full grasp of the situation.
The loophole you have highlight is a very interesting one, it might very well be a possible way to get a Deep Striking Building legally onto the field....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Foto69msn,
Much of those Rules have been Errata'ed out of existence.

JinxDragon wrote:
HawiiMatt,
Your Reply shows that you now have a full grasp of the situation.
The loophole you have highlight is a very interesting one, it might very well be a possible way to get a Deep Striking Building legally onto the field....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Foto69msn,
Much of those Rules have been Errata'ed out of existence.

Ok, well I read the FAQ, but it doesnt delete Stronghold Assault from existing nor change their type from Terrain? Also what about the BRB calling them terrain too? And Fortifications are not listed under unit types?

Edited:

And these two blurbs in the BRB...so no Deep Strike listed under any Datasheets in Stronghold Assault

You’ll find a wide range of fortifications presented in Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault, and further fortification datasheets feature in other Games Workshop publications.

Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game.

I understand what you are saying but its says multiple times that buildings are models.
so its clearly an exception to the rule that all models have unit type.


"it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
"the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
.... and so on

Are you really saying that buildings aren't models it could not be more clear.

Sunhero wrote:
I understand what you are saying but its says multiple times that buildings are models.
so its clearly an exception to the rule that all models have unit type.


"it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
"the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
.... and so on

Are you really saying that buildings aren't models it could not be more clear.

Coming into this fresh...I see it like this after looking at the BRB subjectively.

1. We play a game with Models, because literally that's what they are. (GW sells models so thats how they refer to them as, not Bobbies Plastice Space Man with a Bolter)
2. The BRB talks about unit types which are made up of individual models.
3. Rules differentiate between targeting/effecting the individuals Models or the entire Unit
4. Terrain gets benefits from some aspects of rules. (I put in Aspect, as that is what the BRB uses for a word).
5. Nowhere under Unit types does it talk about Fortifications, but I quoted above where the BRB says you get their individual rules at.
6. They are all talked about a Terrain Type, not model or unit types. So how can it be twisted in anyway to Deep Strike a piece of terrain? Maybe a meteor lol...

I think everyone needs to look past the fact that you buy a model to play this game...so yes literally everything is a model. Look at if it has a Unit type, Terrain Type, or something else.

@jinxdrgon I can tell you have a good understanding of the rules can you look through this run through tell me whats wrong with it.

wwp "If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserve."

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. p.112
"if a unit enter a building they immediately capture and claim that building"p.112

"moving into a building works the same as embarking and disembarking a vehicle" ..."all of the normal rules apply" p.110 bottom left hand pargraph
your combined unit and ic mounted in building makes it a unit because its then claimed.( this happens in reserve)
the 'combined reserve units' section brb p.135 right hand column allows the wwp carrying character to be embarked in reserve.

It then gains the deep strike rule from the wwp and the rest is history.

And again you've yet to provide a specific rule to back up your claims, just vague allusions from the use of the word 'model' which in each and every case can be attributed to either the use of the word meaning "a small copy of something such as a building, vehicle, or machine" or GWs inconsistent use of the word. You need a specific rule that comes out and says that despite not having a characteristic profile or unit type it is considered a model according to the rules and then you'll have an argument. At this point of time, you've not done so.

building are treated as separate models...." p.112
how much more specfic can you get

No, it's not specific. Being 'treated' as separate models is not specific for saying that they ARE models according to the rules.

Sunhero wrote:
building are treated as separate models...." p.112
how much more specfic can you get

What you quoted was to make it easy to tell the difference between two buildings next to each other. Like the Fortress of Redemption. Which has a datasheet with it's rules. Which has no deep strike on it...



GW calls everything models because...winner winner...they SELL models as a model company? Each model has a type to define it, like it says in the BRB. Under those types it gives more defining rules. I re-quoted below for Fortifications...

You’ll find a wide range of fortifications presented in Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault, and further fortification datasheets feature in other Games Workshop publications.

Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game.

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. p.112
your combined unit and ic mounted in building makes it a unit because its then claimed.( this happens in reserve)

It then gains the deep strike rule from the wwp and the rest is history.

I have gone through every stage in minute detail I don't think there's any thing else to say.

There is something else to say, your premise is false ergo your conclusions are false.

So what is the buildings unit type? (Because all models have a unit type).


"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (Models and units chapter, Other Important Information section).

No unit type = not a model.

Buildings and Fortifications are covered under Terrain pretty clearly.

TERRAIN TYPES

All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.

BUILDINGS
The rules for buildings are quite extensive, and are covered in more detail in their own rules section.

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.

So It's a terrain type, that can be purchased. To see it rules you go further down under Terrain, to the sub bullet Buildings. And then it tells you it utilizes some aspects of the transport rules or else things coudl not go inside them. So its a non-moving terrain piece that you can purchase or just set on the table.

Edit:

I also emailed GW and repeated most everything from this thread, even when it made no sense to do so, to try and get an answer. I'll post it if I get it.

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112

model=model

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112

model=model

At this point I don't know if you are just trolling or not. Being entirely serious. Everyone has pointed out to you numerous times that yes you own and paint and play with models. The word in the English language describes everything we use in the game. GW also gave TYPES to it's models. Look at the type of the model for it's rules. No has been arguing with you that a building is...wait for it...a MODEL OF A BUILDING...

Look for it's type of model and the applicable entry in the BRB

"treated as separate models" what does that suggest to you?

maybe that you treat them as separate modes?

Foto69man,
All I was doing was being accurate, many of the Rules referenced in Stronghold Assault have been replaced with 'check The Rules' because a more up-dated version exists within 7th Edition.

Sunhero,
You keep completely ignoring that the Rules also tell us that Models will have a Unit Type...
There is also a debate surrounding if the Building has a true Profile, or just a bunch of count as Rules which interact as if they where a profile.

Given that we are talking about a whole bunch of count as Rules, we have to look at the context created by all these Rule interactions to really understand any one single piece of the puzzle. The only way that the Rules would be interacting with the Building to begin with is through some other 'count as' Rules. Be it permission to count it as a vehicle for a Special Rule, or a Shooting attack, the only time a Rule interacts with the building is when we have been told the Rule has permission to interact with the Building. This would mean we would already be in a situation where the Building as treated as if it was a model for Rule purposes before this one even becomes part of the equation.

There is something interesting about 'treat as' or 'count as' Rules that a lot of people constantly overlook:
They exist in order to grant X access to Y, because X is not Y.

Therefore any Rule stating to treat or count the building as a Model is further evidence that a Building is not a Model....

Sunhero wrote:
"treated as separate models" what does that suggest to you?

maybe that you treat them as separate modes?

I just start laughing when I see your replies now. Unless you glue your entire army to each other, they are all separate models.

Please start reading things, like the BRB in general. It already breaks it down for you that Building are a terrain type. It also does not have any datasheets for the fortifications in there...because GW wants you to buy the Stronghold Assault book. So say you do that. Really cool thing they do...on the datasheets, it echoes exactly what the BRB says, and calls them all Terrain. So back to my original joke way back...the only piece of terrain you are deep striking is a meteor when you:

forge the narrative

Edit:

I was with you Jinx, just was confused as the only place the Datasheets for terrain...I mean Fortifications are at is in Stronghold.

@jinxdragon (You keep completely ignoring that the Rules also tell us that Models will have a Unit Type.... )

even when a building is a unit it does not have a unit type

I think its just a general rule that comes into conflict with a specific rule happens all the time.

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112

model=model

And again, until you can find a direct quote from the rulebook that says despite not having a characteristic profile and a unit type battlefield terrain is a 'model' as defined by the rules all you have is a bunch of vague statements that could be implied in a number of ways, most of which don't support your arguments.

So, please provide a rule that specifically and explicitly says battlefield terrain without having a characteristic profile or unit type. That means it MUST say that it is a model without those two prerequisites and doesn't just call it a 'model' in reference to a different rule or situation.

Sunhero wrote:
@jinxdragon (You keep completely ignoring that the Rules also tell us that Models will have a Unit Type.... )

even when a building is a unit it does not have a unit type

I think its just a general rule that comes into conflict with a specific rule happens all the time.

I am going to post this again...and PM it directly to you so you cannot ignore what the BRB says about Buildings...



Buildings and Fortifications are covered under Terrain pretty clearly.

TERRAIN TYPES

All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.

BUILDINGS
The rules for buildings are quite extensive, and are covered in more detail in their own rules section.

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.

So It's a terrain type, that can be purchased. To see it rules you go further down under Terrain, to the sub bullet Buildings. And then it tells you it utilizes some aspects of the transport rules or else things coudl not go inside them. So its a non-moving terrain piece that you can purchase or just set on the table.

Sunhero,
There are instructions in the book on how to resolve true conflicts between the Rules, covering situations where Rule 1 states to do X while doing X will make it impossible to Resolve Rule 2. These instructions can be found in the General Principal section of the book, with all the other meta-Rules which define the Game itself, under the title of 'Basic Vs Advanced.' I, personally, do not like this part of the book because it does not contain enough details or create enough of a 'hierarchic' to function in all situations. However, this is the actual Written Rules for Resolving such conflicts within the game and that leads me to one simple question.

Where are you getting permission to "trump" a Core Rule / General Principal?

@jinxyep thats the section i dont really see a probmlem

@foto69man find another thread dude your posts meander from one irrelevant point to the next jinx and Ghaz are making points and you just seam to be writing random sentences.

I'm about 100% sure that all my quotes are from the BRB so they hit your topic and clarify your topic every single time so are not irrelevant. I keep pointing out that the BRB defines buildings as terrain. So they cannot be affected by the WWP. Do you just not like the answer or would it be better for me to show page numbers directly from the BRB?

Actually let me ask this, how are you taking the special rule for an HQ model that affects him and a Unit he joins, and that can also apply to a Transport they are embarked in, to a piece of Terrain (Purchased or Neutral)?

I do see a problem:
No permission exists to Resolved a Terrain Rule when it causes a violation with a Core Rule.

I believe it would be very dangerous for any Core Rule or General Principal to be "Trumped" by an Advanced or Basic Rule, even one from the Codex itself. This is because the Basic Rules and General Principals cover how the Players interact with the Rules, how the Rules interact with other Rules and how the whole thing is held together on a wish and a prayer. If it was possible for any Rule to conflict with, and trump, a Core Rule it would be possible for us to change how these Rule interactions are working. It is already proven, from the vast different interpretations on what the Written Rules mean, that there is a great difference in how people view fundamental Rule interaction to begin with.

Throw in the concept that the Core Rules can be trumped and this game becomes even more unplayable then it already is, Rule as Written wise....

@jinx its good point and its what normally happens in these kind of discussions the rules are to some degree self contradictory.
so you ether have a process to solve the problem be it specific/general, chronological RAI or you just roll for it.

I do under stand that the say that all models have stat line unit type ..

but you can see that they outright call a building a model and ask for you to treat it as such right? I'm not going crazy.
To me that seams to be a fairly clear case of specific over general?

the only issue i see here, is how does the building deep strike?

if a building cannot move as explicitly stated on page 110, how do they move at combat speed via deep strike? the building can't move in the first place.

deep strike counts as having moved in the movement phase so that is odd.

i guess we could look at what gauss pylon says when it comes to deep striking - does immobile type allow you to deep strike?

but is a building consider immobile type

@whaked It has rules in deep strike section for immobile units
they still count as having moved at combat speed.

Sunhero,
How many times do I need to point out the obvious:
The Rules do tell us to treat Buildings as Models in certain situations because Buildings are not Models by default.
There would be no need to inform us to treat a X as X, if X was already X....

As Buildings are not Models by default, the Authors would be required to provide us with specific instructions related to when and how we go about resolving Model-specific Rules in situations involving Buildings. The fact the Authors took the time to pen pages of such Rules to cover virtually every single situation is the largest amount of evidence against the concept of 'Buildings Are Models' which no one wants to ever address for me. It is also what makes the Claimed Building Rule very vital to Buildings... it is one of the few Rules which simply states 'they are' instead of 'count as.'

The Rule you are quoting tells us to treat them as Separate Models:
When do we Treat them as such?

So when they directly refer to a building as a model?

I can see this is going nowhere I have nothing more to add than my amended original post but your counter arguments defiantly ironed that out,
to the point where the only argument against is whether or not a building is a model.

I believe that when they directly refer to a building as a model in the context of rules that means its a model.
where as you believe the general section models over rules that.

As you continue to state that Core Rules can be trumped by 'more specific Rules' I am simply going to ask you to do this:
Quote the Rule in the book which allows a Core Rule to be trumped... by anything.

The Rule you quoted also said to 'treat as,' so I again ask this question:
When are we required to Treat the building as separate Models?

Its in the multi part building as opposed to one single model treat it as multiple single models, you knew that right you where just being intentionally obtuse for the sake of argument right?
" advanced rules apply to specific types of models ...because they are not normal infantry models ...yadda yadda yadda you have red the section"

btw avengers 2 trailer just leaked

I continue to ask:
When do we treat it as multiple models?
Where can I find permission to ignore a requirement found within a Core Rule?

i think we have got stuck in a loop you ask the same qution and i quote the same sections.
" advanced rules apply to specific types of models ...because they are not normal infantry models ...yadda yadda yadda you have read the section"

Its in the multi part building as opposed to one single model treat it as multiple single models
except when moving from one section to another it says "in all other regards" treat them as a single model.

p.112 multi part buildings

Ok now that this was went on for a while. I want to piont out the OP's First post ever was on this thread he now has 40+.
With that said I gave up explaining it. And then tried to show how over the top and silly this would be to no effect. Example : FOR and the micro guns and vortex missles. And he has only posted in this trend. With that said I would go good luck trying it and remeber if it seems to good it probably is or your reading it(Rules) wrong.

Q: Can you take a Building as a Dedicated Transport?
Q: If yes, how do you embark on it prior to deployment?

There has yet to be a Building purchasable as a Dedicated Transport.
Even if there was, you would be still be able to Embarked as per the Rules which discuss Embarking into a Fortification during Deployment.

Are you not only allowed to Embark upon a transport vehicle while in Reserve? Buildings are treated as vehicles for purposes of embarking/disembarking, but are not Vehicle-type units.

Also, pretty sure that placing a building into Reserve is not Deploying the building (you don't Deploy until you come out onto the table)... and thus, I'm pretty sure that Buildings have to be deployed onto the table at the start of the game.

Sunhero,
We are going around because what you are posting does not support your conclusions.
Let us use Basic vs Advanced, this here is what the Rules I wanted your comment on:
They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.
- Description of Basic Rules, Advanced Vs Basic
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models
- Description of Advanced Rule, first clause, Adavanced Vs Basic
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.
- Permission to Over-ride a Basic Rule

These three lines are something I would like you to look at and comment on, instead of just simply stating that Advanced trumps Core. Not only does it specify that we can trump Basic with Advanced, it provides a description on what is and Advanced Rule and what is a Basic Rule. As the Rule governing what makes a Model is not located within the Basic Rule's section of the Rulebook, it can not be trumped by an Advanced Rule because permission to do so exists only for Basic Rules. There is even grounds within the description of how Advanced Rules work to state that the Terrain Rules fail to meet the definition of 'Advanced,' but even if they did they can still not over-write the requirement for a profile or Unit Type.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis,
Whichever method you use, models must either deploy within their deployment zone, or be held back in Reserve. Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity
- Deployment
Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve,
- Reserves

This is the two ways to begin the game with a Unit Embarked in a Building or Transport Vehicle. Before anyone tries to point out that one is specific for Buildings while the other is general cause it talks about Transport Vehicles I would like to remind them that 1) Buildings use aspects of the Vehicle Rules and 2) Reserves is done instead of deploying. If it is possible to get a Building into Reserves, and I think someone on this forum has found a way to do that even with the timing concerns, then there would be no issue starting Embarked in one. The problem come with the fact fortifications only have access to the Deployment Rules, and Reserves is a Mission Rule which they lack access to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HawaiiMatt,
I have been toying with ways to break the Ctan's ability to shuffle Reserves after Deployment and I don't know if I can, this looks very well supported by the Rules, the lack of a faction on fortifications might be what makes this possible....

This is the two ways to begin the game with a Unit Embarked in a Building or Transport Vehicle. Before anyone tries to point out that one is specific for Buildings while the other is general cause it talks about Transport Vehicles I would like to remind them that 1) Buildings use aspects of the Vehicle Rules and 2) Reserves is done instead of deploying. If it is possible to get a Building into Reserves, and I think someone on this forum has found a way to do that even with the timing concerns, then there would be no issue starting Embarked in one. The problem come with the fact fortifications only have access to the Deployment Rules, and Reserves is a Mission Rule which they lack access to.

This is what I'm getting at (in small steps).

You can deploy an infantry unit into a building that is inside your deployment zone.

You can move terrain around on the board to allow fortifications and buildings to fit within your deployment zone.

But no where does it give us permission to start a game with a building held in reserves off the table, save (perhaps) for the Castellum Fortification from FW, which is an air-dropped building that still, last I looked, lacked the Deep Strike rule.

However, just because Buildings use aspects of the Vehicle Rules for Embarking/Disembarking does not mean they use the same rules for Deploying/being held in Reserve and deploying from Reserves.

Mainly because there's no fething way they intend for you to shoot a building out of a Web-Way Portal. By what means of locomotion does the building move from whatever Web-Way Tunnel it was sitting in through the Gate that is going to dump it onto the surface of the receiving planet?

They are trying to get around that by the Reserve Rule, which requires it to be a Unit prior to the start of the game....

On that matter:
I have thought long and hard on the best way you counter what is clearly a poor choose of words on the Authors part in a single Rule within the Terrain section of the book and it came to me: Formatting and more Rules.
For those who don't like following formatting based debates, please consider this a General Vs Specific which my opponent has show to take as Rule based evidence.

Ever noticed where the Rule you are quoting lies within the Rulebook itself?

It is quite important when the Authors give something it's own section in the book, Unit Types is also another large one and I have used it to prove that Vehicles are a Unit Type in the past due to the location of those Rules found within. At the very start of the Chapters is a quick summery of what it is about, but also included and little read are lines of Rules that many simply play by without realizing. For example, the Unit Type section begins with This section describes the different types of units that can wage war in the 41st Millennium and the rules you will need to use them. before going on to explain which Rules create conflict with Basics which I have already addressed on how to resolve. At the start it also states So far, we’ve discussed the basic rules as they pertain to Infantry, the most important and common unit type which links all of this into the Basic Rules just described in the previous chapter. This creates a Rule as Written binding that ties Basic and everything else within the Core Rules into the concept of Unit Types.

Then we get to the Battle Field section of the Rules we have this: The Citadel scenery range includes a growing range of models that can be used to represent all of these types of terrain and many more, and in this chapter, you’ll find the rules for the terrain with which you can populate your battlefields. At first glance one would thing this actually strengthens my opponents concept but I would like to highlight that there is nothing within the opening which ties it into the previous sections, there is nothing stating that Unit Types and Terrain Types are linked in anyway... nor does it mention how this interacts with the Core Rules at all, just that this is how we populate a battlefield. The only thing that comes close to tying the concepts together is that it refers to other models standing in and behind said terrain.

This is where I highlight a very important part of the Rule though: and in this chapter, you’ll find the rules for the terrain

This section, with nothing tying it to Core or Unit Types in a manor that specifically states they interact with these Rules it is possible to state that these advanced Rules are self contained. Unless the other Rule specifically states it interacts with a building or a fortification then it has no legal ability to be applied to those things without breaking the very introduction itself. While it is very annoying that they have referenced the Citadel Scenery Range as models within the Rules, I hate that so much cause of this confusion, the Authors have also set the context for which that word has been used to be limited to anything discussed within this Section. Other Models standing behind or in are given context elsewhere but in the case of Multiple Part Buildings?

I think it is obvious the authors are talking about the Citadel Range when they referenced Models, not the Rule-specific meaning.

Honestly I can see how. They open the portal below the building and it gets sucked into it. But that would have to be a big portal lol.

Then when the building lands it falls over because it doesn't have a proper foundation...

Is there anything that says you must deploy the Fortification upright?

Actually no Jinx there is not. Lol. The only restrictions are in order or way connected. Nothing stops you other then design and door placement. But you could customise a base for it sideways. It would not protect the same way but a fallen bastion that has been damaged or had it's foundation undermined.

Can someone tell me how you can deep strike terrain? I fail to see how you can? Both the BRB and Stronghold list the models as terrain.

I would think that overrules all this discussion?

Edit:

The only rule I can think of that actually overrides a peices of terrains rules is a Tyraid Warlord Trait, which is no longer valid due to carnivorous jungles being gone from the BRB. So is everyone hinging their tactics on the fact the BRB doesn't say you can't deep strike terrain?

Foto69man,
What you posted would not be enough in a Rule as Written Debate focusing on the Rules themselves. There are Rule interactions at play and if they can get the right combination of permissions we would need a Restriction to make it illegal. Right now they are lacking any sort of concrete permission aside from a few poor choices within the Terrain section of the book. The side stating they do not have the needed permission quotes a Core Rule which details what is and is not a Model, highlighting that Terrain fails to meet these definitions and therefore can not access Model-Specific Rules till it is far too late to matter.

Fireraven,
Lets assume we are 'That ******* Guy' and pulling the Necron-Dark Eldar trick, why not go all out in the Modelling for Advantage department as well?
Firing and Access Points are per Model....

Jinx they show models in the cities of death book that are triple bastions and things all the time. Look at it some time or planetstrike they Got pictures of custom terrain thoughout. I actually know a guy that now has those very models from the books after they scrapped them.

JinxDragon wrote:
Foto69man,Fireraven,
Lets assume we are 'That ******* Guy' and pulling the Necron-Dark Eldar trick, why not go all out in the Modelling for Advantage department as well?

Well, at least we can agree (I assume ) that trick is not legal so using it would definitely make you 'That Guy' .

I'd think of this like this:

Building is an immobile vehicle.

Immobile vehicle can't move.

Deep strike = counts as moving 6 inches.

Deep strike prohibited.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I'd think of this like this:

Building is an immobile vehicle.

Immobile vehicle can't move.

Deep strike = counts as moving 6 inches.

Deep strike prohibited.

BIG RULE BOOK, page 135, second column, fourth paragraph:

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it is impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

So, you go ahead and put your fortification in reserves, and I'll show you a rule that says it's destroyed before you even get the chance to embark on it.

Buildings, whether or not they may be models, do not have a movement characteristic and so can not move onto the table by deepstrike, outflank, psychic powers, or magic ponies.

Can we all agree that Sunhero is on a quest to prove the impossible, and just let him ramble.

No TO anywhere will ever let him, or anyone else deepstrike a building.

No sane player would ever let him deepstrike a building unless they were playing a game for simple comic effect.

You can not deepstrike a building.

At first this thread was humorous for how ridiculous it was, but now it is simply boring.

NighHowler,
Take notice this part in the Rule you quoted:
In addition, if it is impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve.

The sentence that follows is an exception, to it is directly linked to the previous sentence telling us that we can / must do something. It also contains the wording 'if it is impossible to deploy' and unless there is no physical room to deploy the Fortification then it is possible to deploy them at this point in time. The option to willingly place them into Reserves does not automatically destroy them, it gets around the Rule which states they would be destroyed by not being the proper subject matter.

Instantly destroying all Fortifications in reserves might the Authors Intention but the Written Rule does not support it.

JinxDragon wrote:
NighHowler,
Take notice this part in the Rule you quoted:
In addition, if it is impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve.

The sentence that follows is an exception, to it is directly linked to the previous sentence telling us that we can / must do something. It also contains the wording 'if it is impossible to deploy' and unless there is no physical room to deploy the Fortification then it is possible to deploy them at this point in time. The option to willingly place them into Reserves does not automatically destroy them, it gets around the Rule which states they would be destroyed by not being the proper subject matter.

Instantly destroying all Fortifications in reserves might the Authors Intention but the Written Rule does not support it.

I might agree with you if not for this sentence: " The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed." Clearly they are talking about ALL units that can not move and not simply models which you are unable to place.

Again notice the words 'The only Exception to this are Units that cannot move....'

That begs the obvious question:
What is 'this' ?

I just like looking at the BRB and wondering..."Man, buildings and fortifications are terrain, so obviously can't deep strike. But then again there's no rule saying expressly that they can't. While we are at it, there is no rule saying I can't break an opponent's models with a hammer..."

See how asinine the argument gets about "Not expressly forbidden?" GW has its flaws, and trying to apply a thinly stretched loophole to a piece of scenery...so you can have a one trick pony advantage is just sad really. Last time I am posting here as it is a bit dumb and I can't really understand people logic other than being TFG or WAAC.

Foto69man,
If Permission to do X is granted, the only thing which can revoke that permission is a Restriction against X.

The other side's argument has always been that they have permission to put a Building into Reserves, so they now have a way to Deep Strike the Building from Reserves that they didn't have prior. It is a flawed concept, as they have yet to prove where permission to Reserve is coming from, but it is far from an argument based solely around 'The Rules don't forbid me from doing X' that you continue to try and claim that it is. I do politely request that you drop the Strawman, it is making it harder for people who actually want a legitimate debate on both sides to actually have that meaningful discord.

JinxDragon wrote:
Is there anything that says you must deploy the Fortification upright?

Physics.

Well I have asked and pointed out multiple times about it's not a unit/unit type/vehicle. It is clearly listed in the BRB and Stronghold as Terrain. So I think step one is to see how or why we think we can do anything to or with Terrain other than set it up on the table?

Basically almost all the rules relate or affect the Units and Vehicles from the Core Rule section towards the front of the BRB. Terrain has its own section, with their own rules. Additional Rules and the Datasheets for them are in Stronghold. To make a rule affect terrain, it must say terrain. Quoting rules which say the model in a unit...is trying to stretch way too thin and won't hold up in common play/usage. Also, Fortifications are not transports or vehicles, they only use an 'Aspect' of the vehicle rules so you know how many max models you can have in said building. So you cannot use a vehicle or transportation rule to cover this maneuver.

Also, I am an auditor for a living, I can help point out where you guys are going deficient in your arguments and cases. Right now, there are more holes and leaps of faith than actual supporting statements and rules. Hopefully that helps you.

Their argument is based around a poor chose of words within the Terrain Rules:
A few sections refer to the terrain pieces as models.

The counter is to point out that the Rules have a list of criteria that needs to be met before it is a Model from a Rule as Written standard. That simply being refereed to as a model, which can also mean the plastic miniature, does not over-rule the requirement to have X and Y, not without something specifically stating that Rule X can apply even though the 'model' does not have Y. We also point out that all Rules are applied to models, which would include quite a lot of Rules which require values only found on a profile or instructions that are only found under a Unit Type entry. It is literally impossible to play the game, as written, with the concept that Terrain are Models by default because every turn would have numerous 'can not resolve' situations.

My favorite is still Joining an Independent Character to a Defense Line, also possible if Terrain pieces are models, as it will make it impossible to get successful results during the To Wound portion of the Shooting Sequence.

JinxDragon wrote:
Again notice the words 'The only Exception to this are Units that cannot move....'

That begs the obvious question:
What is 'this' ?

There are only two sentences before that one so the problem is simple and easily answered.

If "this" refers to the second sentence then the rule is a little more ambiguous but still clearly intended to disallow buildings being kept in reserve.

If "this" refers to the first sentence, which I think is much more likely given that the subject of the paragraph is "preparing reserves" and not people-who-try-to-deep-striking-buildings then it is clear beyond any question that you can not deep strike anything that can not move. Buildings can not move. Buildings must be placed during deployment and if they can not be placed they are destroyed.

NightHowler,
That one will put me back on the fence on that issue, thank you.

@ night howler and jinxdragon

On the point of deep striking things that cant move "the must be destroyed" section counts for thing that cant be deployed and then cant later be moved onto the board.

their are even a passage that address deep striking immobile vehicles in the deep strike section of special rules.

and necron pylons and drop pods are two examples of things that deep strike that are immobile that come two mind.

A building doesn't actually have the immobile type though, as far as I have read. It's just a building that cannot move. I would agree with the Necron Pylon just said it couldn't move but it actually has a type which is Immobile, and on the note of drop pods, they have a rule that basically says they are immobile after they come into play.

So a good point for this debate.

Buildings are still terrain, so that has not been overridden at all. For them, you HAVE to refer to their datasheets for their core rules. I am choosing the Bastion in this case as its the most commonly used. There fore we have to go to Stronghold Assault:

Imperial Bastion:

Terrain Type Medium Building(So its not considered anything but terrain...Special Rules...None...

The other flip side is a Drone Sentry turret. It is a building/fortification as well...but wait!!!

Unit type Vehicle...Special Rules Immobile...May be given Deep Strike for +5pts

So a building/fortification that IS meant to deep strike or be deployed normally...has the rules for it, and it has an actual unit type, not listed as Terrain!!!

I do believe precedent shows the way forward here:

1. It's terrain and only tyranids have a rule to change what type of terrain it is
2. Buildings that deep strike have it in their rules
3. Buildings and Fortifications do not fall under/fit/or are categorized in the unit listings or types so trying to subject them to those rules is a stretch
4. Buildings and Fortifications are not Transports (rehash of #1, but needs to be said for clarity)

 foto69man wrote:
So a good point for this debate.

Buildings are still terrain, so that has not been overridden at all. For them, you HAVE to refer to their datasheets for their core rules. I am choosing the Bastion in this case as its the most commonly used. There fore we have to go to Stronghold Assault:

Imperial Bastion:

Terrain Type Medium Building(So its not considered anything but terrain...Special Rules...None...

The other flip side is a Drone Sentry turret. It is a building/fortification as well...but wait!!!

Unit type Vehicle...Special Rules Immobile...May be given Deep Strike for +5pts

So a building/fortification that IS meant to deep strike or be deployed normally...has the rules for it, and it has an actual unit type, not listed as Terrain!!!

I do believe precedent shows the way forward here:

1. It's terrain and only tyranids have a rule to change what type of terrain it is
2. Buildings that deep strike have it in their rules
3. Buildings and Fortifications do not fall under/fit/or are categorized in the unit listings or types so trying to subject them to those rules is a stretch
4. Buildings and Fortifications are not Transports (rehash of #1, but needs to be said for clarity)

Where buildings are listed as models and units has already been shown, where they say that count as vehicles for special rules has also been started.
WWP doesn't require a vehicle, only that you are embarked.
It's also a bit of a stretch to use a single model from forgeworld to tell us how the BRB works. Codex modifies BRB, not the other way around.

Your statement is much more simple and clear, but it isn't what the rules actually say. Honestly, all buildings should have just been immobile vehicles with additional rules (can be claimed by opponent).

Sunhero wrote:
@ night howler and jinxdragon

On the point of deep striking things that cant move "the must be destroyed" section counts for thing that cant be deployed and then cant later be moved onto the board.

their are even a passage that address deep striking immobile vehicles in the deep strike section of special rules.

and necron pylons and drop pods are two examples of things that deep strike that are immobile that come two mind.

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it is impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

@ Sunhero
The paragraph is called "Preparing Reserves" not "Deepstriking Buildings". The context of the paragraph is important to help understand the meaning of the sentences. If you read the paragraph as "Deepstriking Buildings" then I can see why you might believe that the third sentence only refers to things that are forced into reserves and how that would exclude your deepstriking building, since you held it in reserves on purpose.

But, since the paragraph is not called "Deepstriking Buildings", it is much more likely that when it says, "The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed." it is referring to "Preparing Reserves" and not "Deepstriking Buildings".

And yes, there are passages in the big rule book that explain how to deepstrike immobile vehicles because they wanted you to know that those specific vehicles/models were an exception to the rule. If the webway portal were intended to let you deepstrike buildings it would say specifically that you could deepstrike buildings with it. Claiming that, since you can embark troops on a vehicle held in reserve, you must also be allowed to embark troops into a building held in reserve is nonsense, because a building that can not be placed is destroyed.

And no. Saying "if it can not be placed" does not imply that it's ok if you do it on purpose.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. If you have any questions, or if you disagree with any of this please write out point by point which parts of this you disagree with.

"such units are destroyed If its its impossible to deploy them during the deployment step"

Look at that post that's not 4 paragraphs of repeats of the same thing each one more incoherent than the last.

Sunhero wrote:
"such units are destroyed If its its impossible to deploy them during the deployment step"

Look at that post that's not 4 paragraphs of repeats of the same thing each one more incoherent than the last.

This is why this thread is 7 pages long.

I've posted a very thoughtful explanation of why it's impossible and you reply with this.

I'm done. Good luck deep striking buildings at your next tournament. I hope your list does really well.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


Where buildings are listed as models and units has already been shown, where they say that count as vehicles for special rules has also been started.

And the lack of a unit type means they are not models.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


Where buildings are listed as models and units has already been shown, where they say that count as vehicles for special rules has also been started.

And the lack of a unit type means they are not models.

Which again, has been disproved on page 9.
They count as units, and units are defined as models.

Not just 'count as' Units, Claimed Buildings simply are Units....

And they're not claimed until the game actually begins...

and when they do become units are they a unit that does not contain a model?

They become a unit after you have the chance to put them in reserve.

I don't deny that but when they become a unit theirs no mention of them getting the model destination.

so if they don't all ready have the model designation then they would become a unit containing no models.

which would impossible to target.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


Where buildings are listed as models and units has already been shown, where they say that count as vehicles for special rules has also been started.

And the lack of a unit type means they are not models.

Which again, has been disproved on page 9.
They count as units, and units are defined as models.

It has not been disproven.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" Each model has a unit type...

What is the buildings unit type.

If it does not have one it is not a model because "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type"

Sunhero wrote:
I don't deny that but when they become a unit theirs no mention of them getting the model destination.

so if they don't all ready have the model designation then they would become a unit containing no models.

which would impossible to target.

False. You shoot at units, not 'models'.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


Where buildings are listed as models and units has already been shown, where they say that count as vehicles for special rules has also been started.

And the lack of a unit type means they are not models.

Which again, has been disproved on page 9.
They count as units, and units are defined as models.

It has not been disproven.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" Each model has a unit type...

What is the buildings unit type.

If it does not have one it is not a model because "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type"

It's unit type is terrain...always has been...per its datasheet. The BRB tells you its terrain. Immobile terrain. Immobile terrain with some special rules.

Also......everything in this game is a model people. They also all have Unit types that define them. The things we are arguing about are all designated as Terrain Type. So go from there and try to figure out if you can put terrain into reserves.

 foto69man wrote:
It's unit type is terrain...always has been...per its datasheet. The BRB tells you its terrain. Immobile terrain. Immobile terrain with some special rules.

I see where it has a Terrain Type but where does it say that it has a Unit Type? Terrain Type /= Unit Type.

 foto69man wrote:


It's unit type is terrain...always has been...per its datasheet. The BRB tells you its terrain. Immobile terrain. Immobile terrain with some special rules.

Weird, I dont see Terrain listed as a unit type in the BRB, got a quote that says terrain is a unit?

If terrain is a unit you can use the movement and assault rules with them, so you could have a forest assault a unit and tie it up all game, which clearly is incorrect.

Also......everything in this game is a model people.

This is also false, to an extent.

There is a model meaning miniature version of something, which everything in the game is.

There is also "Model" as the rules define them, which not everything in the game is...

They also all have Unit types that define them.

Terrain does not have a unit type.

The things we are arguing about are all designated as Terrain Type. So go from there and try to figure out if you can put terrain into reserves.

Terrain Type does not = Unit type...

Good, glad people pointed out Terrain wasn't a unit type ;-)

So now we are a step closer to showing this cannot work.

@ghanz
false... ?
I bet your like that dude from the office
any way when you measure from unit to unit you measure from the nearest model and their are other functions that are specifically done with models such as a line where it says units are made up of models.

I do take your point about unit type and state line and so on
Its clearly an internal inconsistency in the brb.
my take on it

if the book said all the members of group A have a value less than 5
It then said X has a value of 6 and is and should be treated as a member of group A
Its bad rules writing shore but it should still be treated as a member of group A as it has been specifically designated and you have been instructed to do so .
bit like 0 being an even number.

sorry for the rambling paragraph but abstraction helps when talking about the problem.


I 100% see where you are coming from but think if some thing has been designated as a member of a group and you a have been instructed to treat it as such then not having all the characteristics of that group does not override that designation.

The implications of treating fortifications as units is huge.

If we accept that they are units that can be held in reserve and deep struck then it seems that you also have to accept independent characters joining defense lines. As cool as deep striking buildings is, invincible independent characters is completely game breaking.

If you have to take both or neither I think it makes more sense to choose the argument that does not completely break the game.

The fact that claimed buildings are units is not in dispute p.112

Its the model designation that is the sticking point and the fact that designation is inconstantly defined.

I think it's also in part that the building is not a unit until claimed, which does not happen until the game starts, which is after you place things in Reserves.

Yep true but the model designation is all that is required to be able to be placed in reserve. p.132

Sunhero wrote:
Yep true but the model designation is all that is required to be able to be placed in reserve. p.132

Except terrain is not a model, as "each model will have a unit type"

All models have a unit type.

Buildings do not have a unit type so they are not Models.

I 100% see where you are coming from but think if some thing has been designated as a member of a group and you a have been instructed to treat it as such then not having all the characteristics of that group does not override that designation.

@jinxdrgon and people bringing up the problem of people joining units into invincible squads such as ic joining defense lines i think this problem is solved by the fact that buildings are non factional.
which also means they cant be targeted by friendly psychic powers i think.

Sunhero,
All models on the same side are friendly models.
- Friendly and Enemy Models

As all Models on the same side are friendly by default, we would require some sort of Rule which changes the Fortifications status to 'Enemy' before we can legally deny the application of a Rule which targets a Friendly Model. This is why the Allied Matrix is so important, as it contains 'Treat / Count as an Enemy' clauses which force other Rules to ignore the friendly by default status. As Fortifications lack a faction, they are unable to Resolve the Matrix even if it can be shown that they are still bound by it and other Faction related Rules. This means, the best case outcome of such an argument would be to prove that Fortifications are broken to the point they can not be used in game without 'blue-screening' it.

(just re read it and i think your right.)
was reading the attacking buildings section.

the passage "or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle" caught my attention.
I had previously ignored it because i thought it only applied when attacking buildings.

this solves a lot of problems.

not shore as it solves the ic problem but that is in the special rules section.

Sunhero,
Please take your time to explain your point.
Why would the lack of Battle Brother status matter?

JinxDragon wrote:
Sunhero,
All models on the same side are friendly models.
- Friendly and Enemy Models

As all Models on the same side are friendly by default, we would require some sort of Rule which changes the Fortifications status to 'Enemy' before we can legally deny the application of a Rule which targets a Friendly Model. This is why the Allied Matrix is so important, as it contains 'Treat / Count as an Enemy' clauses which force other Rules to ignore the friendly by default status. As Fortifications lack a faction, they are unable to Resolve the Matrix even if it can be shown that they are still bound by it and other Faction related Rules. This means, the best case outcome of such an argument would be to prove that Fortifications are broken to the point they can not be used in game without 'blue-screening' it.

Fortifications, lacking a faction, are unaffected by the rules on how different factions interact.
The CAD and Allied detachments require that all units be either of the same faction, or have no faction at all.
If I run a Grey Knight army, with a bastion (CAD), and a second CAD of chaos daemons with another Bastion, then the daemons and grey knights are restricted by the Come the Apocalypse, where as the two bastions get along with each other, and both forces, just fine.

I don't see how Allies (page 126) has any bearing at all on Fortification which, by lacking a faction, completely ignore that whole section.

@ jinx sorry check what I wrote again I changed it right after i posted it.
your both right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the passage "or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle" caught my attention.
I had previously ignored it because i thought it only applied when attacking buildings.

this solves a lot of problems.

not shore as it solves the ic problem but that is in the special rules section.

Sunhero wrote:
@ jinx sorry check what I wrote again I changed it right after i posted it.
your both right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the passage "or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle" caught my attention.
I had previously ignored it because i thought it only applied when attacking buildings.

this solves a lot of problems.

not shore as it solves the ic problem but that is in the special rules section.

That is only for determining if it can be targeted by a shooting attack, psychic power, or charged.

That is specifically under the Repel The Enemy Special Rule, and applies to that instance only. It's when GW gave a special rule to Terrain to help with storming a building.

"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, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

reread it there is a clear separation between sections and "or affected by a special rule." clearly applies to all special rules though it is in the Attacking buildings section that's why I over looked it at first.

I really think we need to stop trying with this. Terrain has so many special rules that negate each other, there is not point in trying to deep strike a bastion. Unless you get the BAO are LVO behind you, its not going to go far anyways.

1. Common Sense...as far as that goes in 40k
2. Just top level reading the rules...it doesn't make sense
3. Even repeating your arguments to others, it doesn't make sense, or they had to suspend what little belief they had to even consider it.

At this point, I would move this to HWYP it since the rules don't clearly support it and unfortunately don't say "You cannot deep strike terrain."

It seems very TFG and WAAC -ish at heart. Besides the fact that you play against a Tau player who will murder it with interceptor...it's a one trick pony who I'm not sure why you are wasting time in this, rather than developing valid strategies


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunhero wrote:
"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, treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

reread it there is a clear separation between sections and "or affected by a special rule." clearly applies to all special rules though it is in the Attacking buildings section that's why I over looked it at first.

And re-read what Section that is actually for instead of cherry picking words and phrases to try and support your argument. As an auditor, you CANNOT choose a single word or phrase and think it will suffice. The entirety of the paragraph or section applies. You guys have still not shown anything valid enough to stand up. It's merely been suppositions and half statements. Mostly been on generalized statements and not mentioneds.

Please point out where you can use unit and transport specific rules to affect Terrain, as that is what Fortifications and buildings are. The WWP affects transports, a building is not a transport. It is a piece of scenery that is placed, and then during deployment units may be embarked in it. Thats why "ASPECTS" of the transports rules apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the vary least, do a re-hash post and spell out point for point the sections that support your decision. Don't pick and choose phrase either, spell out the entire thing and then explain why. I think that's part of the problem. People say: "Oh that's a model" and then nothing else...Summarize the proven statements after 8 pages.

Sunhero wrote:
(just re read it and i think your right.)
was reading the attacking buildings section.

the passage "or affected by a special rule, treat the building as a vehicle" caught my attention.
I had previously ignored it because i thought it only applied when attacking buildings.

this solves a lot of problems.

not shore as it solves the ic problem but that is in the special rules section.

Well Right there you just said it. Treat it like a vehicle if that is the case the IC cannot join it all by it self because IC cannot to attached to vehicle only models it is in the IC section. It is the second sentence ," IC cannot however, join units that contain vehicles or Monstrous creatures.

You keep saying like a vehicle so right there kills it. RAW Wins. NOT allowed point blank

 foto69man wrote:

At this point, I would move this to HWYP it since the rules don't clearly support it and unfortunately don't say "You cannot deep strike terrain."

It seems very TFG and WAAC -ish at heart. Besides the fact that you play against a Tau player who will murder it with interceptor...it's a one trick pony who I'm not sure why you are wasting time in this, rather than developing valid strategies

From a fluff stand point, sections of the city fall out of the webway into real space. Sections have been forced out by rival kabals. Having a section shunted into real space doesn't seem outside of the fluff of DE.
For it to be a TFG or WAAC, it would actually have to be useful. I started up a thread in tactics to look at the tactical application of it, and the results where pretty limited.
HIWPI, is that I wouldn't play it. It really isn't useful. An AV10 3+ jinking transport that has some mobility is a lot better than an AV14 never moves again bunker.
Tau murdering things with interceptor fire is a problem for the whole of the DE army, not just a bunker gimmick.

@fireraven we where discussing a separate issue of ic joining buildings because claimed buildings are classified as units.

I'm not shore what your saying isn't allowed but if its the wwp the ic embarks on the building this is outlined in the original post.

 foto69man wrote:
I really think we need to stop trying with this. Terrain has so many special rules that negate each other, there is not point in trying to deep strike a bastion. Unless you get the BAO are LVO behind you, its not going to go far anyways.

1. Common Sense...as far as that goes in 40k

Well, in the lore, the Imperium does have temples designed to be dropped from orbit, and Orks have Roks.