yesterday I played against a really potato of a player,

he brought the aquila strongpoint thing (the 2 D blasts) and a fortress of redemtiom.

he stuck an inquisitor w/ the liber heresies (scout move relic thing) in the fortress and some scouts in the strongpoint.

He said that both were allowed to scout move because both units inside had scout and the fortifications were technically vehicles. We scoured the rulebook and I couldn't find anything saying that he couldn't.

So Dakka, I ask you, is there something preventing this specific rule or am I screwed. No matter what, I learned that I will never play against him again.

happy wargaming,

-Mikey

Pg 110 of the mini Rulebook-
"The main difference between a building and actual vehicles is that they can't move,". Second paragraph, and bold. So, if you are moving the building, that is violating the rule. You keep calling it a Scout MOVE so... nope.

As per the rule book Scout unit provide their special rule to their dedicated transport only.

Since Fortification are NOT DTs then no he could not.

Rule as per exact words:
" If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a dedicated transport, it confer the Scout special rule to the transport"

So no DT no Scout

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Pg 110 of the mini Rulebook-
"The main difference between a building and actual vehicles is that they can't move,". Second paragraph, and bold. So, if you are moving the building, that is violating the rule. You keep calling it a Scout MOVE so... nope.

On this, as per the rules for scout it technically is a redeployment rather than a straight up move. That's why you don't take difficult or dangerous terrain checks. So if you could give a building scout through some means it's perfectly viable. The way you would treat this in fluff isit was camo nets and a fake bunker?

 HANZERtank wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Pg 110 of the mini Rulebook-
"The main difference between a building and actual vehicles is that they can't move,". Second paragraph, and bold. So, if you are moving the building, that is violating the rule. You keep calling it a Scout MOVE so... nope.

On this, as per the rules for scout it technically is a redeployment rather than a straight up move. That's why you don't take difficult or dangerous terrain checks. So if you could give a building scout through some means it's perfectly viable. The way you would treat this in fluff isit was camo nets and a fake bunker?

Or...

In short Buildings can't scout redeploy as they have no permission to redeploy any number of inches. So how far you can redeploy is based on unit type, buildings don't have a unit type thus have no distance they can redeploy.

Well it's not infantry, walker, artillery or monstrous creature. So it it gets to redeploy 12" under it being 'any' other unit type. It's part of my army so it is one of my units.

 HANZERtank wrote:
Well it's not infantry, walker, artillery or monstrous creature. So it it gets to redeploy 12" under it being 'any' other unit type. It's part of my army so it is one of my units.

It is not a unit, unless you have rules that say otherwise. However being a unit is irrelevant, having a unit type is what matters (and is a model property not a unit property). What unit type is say a Bastion? It must have one if you're using the any other unit type clause to redeploy 12".

It's unit type is unknown. Therefore it being of the Unit Type:Unknown it does a 12" redeploy as it is not named as one of the ones that does 6". Any other unit type includes new ones made or unclassified.

Anyway I don't think there is a way to give a building scout so it's a moot point. More interesting is the ability to outflank buildings using the warlord trait from AM.

I was actually scouring the rulebook last night looking up more of the "deep striking fortifications" nonsense. I can say with certainty that Buildings purchased as part of your army are units with a unit type of Building. They use all the same rules as Transports, but are immobile and can't move. So long as the Scout rule states that it is redeployed, and isn't moved, then you are able to redeploy it. I know Necrons have a "grand illusion" special rule for the Deceiver, and there are other special rules, that allows units to be redeployed. As this is a re-deployment, and not a movement, then the building can indeed be redeployed.

 Yarium wrote:
I was actually scouring the rulebook last night looking up more of the "deep striking fortifications" nonsense. I can say with certainty that Buildings purchased as part of your army are units with a unit type of Building. They use all the same rules as Transports, but are immobile and can't move. So long as the Scout rule states that it is redeployed, and isn't moved, then you are able to redeploy it. I know Necrons have a "grand illusion" special rule for the Deceiver, and there are other special rules, that allows units to be redeployed. As this is a re-deployment, and not a movement, then the building can indeed be redeployed.

I suppose you have rule quotes to back up the outlandish claims that buildings are units (as nothing in the rules says this) and that they gave unit type: Building and that Building is a valid unit type.

Because my rule never says buildings are units (so they aren't). It does not list Building as a unit type or mention buildings at all in the unit type section. Whilst it does not in the BrB or Stronghold assault list a single unit type with any building. It lists Terrain Types which are an entirely different thing.

So page and paragraph or direct quote for whereyou got your claims please.

 HANZERtank wrote:
It's unit type is unknown. Therefore it being of the Unit Type:Unknown it does a 12" redeploy as it is not named as one of the ones that does 6". Any other unit type includes new ones made or unclassified.

Anyway I don't think there is a way to give a building scout so it's a moot point. More interesting is the ability to outflank buildings using the warlord trait from AM.

I'm not 100% if you can have a building in reserve though...

The rule:

"When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of there units, keeping them as Reserves to deploy 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."

This rule doesn't make it clear if the italicized portion occurs during the orange part, or the green part. Because of the "In addition" text, it's possible that "the only exception" references the orange text only, meaning that units that can't move after they have been deployed (ie - Building) can't be kept in Reserves. It's also possible that "the only exception" references only the preceding green sentence, meaning that such units (Buildings) are only destroyed if it were impossible to deploy them, but that if it is possible to deploy them, then they could be chosen to be held in Reserves.

Which of these two options is true is not known by me.

 HANZERtank wrote:
It's unit type is unknown. Therefore it being of the Unit Type:Unknown it does a 12" redeploy as it is not named as one of the ones that does 6". Any other unit type includes new ones made or unclassified.

Anyway I don't think there is a way to give a building scout so it's a moot point. More interesting is the ability to outflank buildings using the warlord trait from AM.

Where does it say it has unit type: unknown? Skitarii have a detachment that gives fortifications scout.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I was actually scouring the rulebook last night looking up more of the "deep striking fortifications" nonsense. I can say with certainty that Buildings purchased as part of your army are units with a unit type of Building. They use all the same rules as Transports, but are immobile and can't move. So long as the Scout rule states that it is redeployed, and isn't moved, then you are able to redeploy it. I know Necrons have a "grand illusion" special rule for the Deceiver, and there are other special rules, that allows units to be redeployed. As this is a re-deployment, and not a movement, then the building can indeed be redeployed.

I suppose you have rule quotes to back up the outlandish claims that buildings are units (as nothing in the rules says this) and that they gave unit type: Building and that Building is a valid unit type.

Because my rule never says buildings are units (so they aren't). It does not list Building as a unit type or mention buildings at all in the unit type section. Whilst it does not in the BrB or Stronghold assault list a single unit type with any building. It lists Terrain Types which are an entirely different thing.

So page and paragraph or direct quote for where you got your claims please.

If you can wait 5 hours for me to get home, I will get that info for you. I was looking through the rules last night and found a specific entry that really did verify this for me. It doesn't say "it's unit type is Building", but it does make it very clear that buildings are units. As for why unit type of Building? Because that is the only way they are referred to. In fact, I'm not 100% certain that if you look in the rulebook you'll be able to find a page that says "vehicles are units with a unit type of vehicle"... though admittedly, I've never had reason to look.

Well I have a bastion, it is a model in my army. Page 9 says "The models that make up your army must be organised into 'units'." Thus means my bastion model must be a unit. For it to be a unit it needs a unit type. We don't know what it's type is but it's definitely not infantry, walker, artillery or monstrous creature. I can't see anything else saying it can scout though. I'm happy to go either way on it right now.

 HANZERtank wrote:
It's unit type is unknown. Therefore it being of the Unit Type:Unknown it does a 12" redeploy as it is not named as one of the ones that does 6". Any other unit type includes new ones made or unclassified.

Anyway I don't think there is a way to give a building scout so it's a moot point. More interesting is the ability to outflank buildings using the warlord trait from AM.

I do agree with you that it can move 12" if it had scout, which as eldar one of my warlord traits is give D3 units in your army scout, So i can give a fortification(since it is a UNIT slot on the force chart) scout. This would allow me to move it up to 12" during the scout phase.
I do however disagree with how the other player used the scouts and the inquisitor to move the building, since you cannot take the building as a dedicated transport (from my recollection) so he should not have been able to move the building.

Can a Fortification be placed in reserve? That sounds weird and unlikely to me. How would you determine where you could place it when it comes in?

Also how did you come up with 12" scout move on a model that cannot ordinarily move at all?

Because thats what it says in the BrB ON PG 171 for scout.
If it is infantry,artillery, walker or MC, then it can scout 6", it it is any other unit type than it can redeploy within 12"

 HANZERtank wrote:
Well I have a bastion, it is a model in my army. Page 9 says "The models that make up your army must be organised into 'units'." Thus means my bastion model must be a unit. For it to be a unit it needs a unit type. We don't know what it's type is but it's definitely not infantry, walker, artillery or monstrous creature. I can't see anything else saying it can scout though. I'm happy to go either way on it right now.

I follow your logic on it being a unit will have to get back to you on that if I find an error in it.

Why does being a unit mean it must have a unit type? Models have unut types not units so making ANY units have a unit type let alone all as you claim is certainly contrary to the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bluestang10 wrote:
Because thats what it says in the BrB ON PG 171 for scout.
If it is infantry,artillery, walker or MC, then it can scout 6", it it is any other unit type than it can redeploy within 12"

Why 12" though it is not a MC, Inf, walker or Artillery, nor is it any other unit type so why arbitrarily choose 12"?

I'd say if they do have a unit type it would be transport. It says in the building section it uses aspects of the transport vehicles rules. I don't know exactly how far you would take this but that's one way to do it.

bluestang10 wrote:

Why 12" though it is not a MC, Inf, walker or Artillery, nor is it any other unit type so why arbitrarily choose 12"?

So I am not arbitrarily choosing 12", the RAW says it is a 12" scout move(assuming you can give it scout, which I know I could with the correct warlord trait). You are arguing that the building is not a unit, which is were I disagree. The building rules as stated in the BrB says that is uses all aspects of the transport vehicle rules, the difference being that it cannot move. and they can be controlled by either side. So RAW it is a unit, you take it in a unit slot in your Force Chart, and giving it scout with a warlord trait or such will allow you to move it before the game starts, because scout is a REDEPLOYMENT not a move.

I wasn't arguing whether it was a unit. Being a unit is irrelevant, having a unit type is relevant. So what unit type does a Fortification have? Remembering unit type is a model property not a unit property (so no units have a unit type ever).

A model doesn't have to have a unit type to be a unit. It just SHOULD. If a model doesn't have a unit type, then we're at an impasse when we are asked about its type.

We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Out of curiosity... why is that important here?

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Haha. That's why I qualified the statement. We're never at an impasse because we're never asked about the unit type of a building. If a rule actually asked for the unit type of a building, we wouldn't be able to answer and the rule would break. No current rule cares about the unit type. Some rules care about the fact that a fortification/building can be a unit.

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Out of curiosity... why is that important here?

To redeploy 6" you must have a unit type of Infantry, MC, Artillery or Walker.

To redeploy 12" must have any other unit type.

With no unit type you don't fall into either category thus have no permission to redeploy any distance. Hence why Fortifications can't scout redeploy.

By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

 Jimsolo wrote:
By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

My logic had nothing to do with whether or not they were units. Please point to the part where I've stated being a unit or not has ANY impact on being able to Scout move?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Out of curiosity... why is that important here?

To redeploy 6" you must have a unit type of Infantry, MC, Artillery or Walker.

To redeploy 12" must have any other unit type.

With no unit type you don't fall into either category thus have no permission to redeploy any distance. Hence why Fortifications can't scout redeploy.

But logically that doesn't following:

IF (unit type = Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 6 inches)

IF (unit type =/= Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 12 inches)

So, if unit type is null, then null is not infantry, monstrous creature, artillery, or walker, which means that as a unit with Scout, it'd be redeployed 12".

 Jimsolo wrote:
By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

Lets not go down that road again. A fortification claimed by an army is 100% a unit. No one should be debating that point.

FlingitNow's logic is not that the fortification is not a unit and therefore cannot redeploy, but rather that it lacks a unit type. With out a unit type is does not fall into one of the two categories establish in the scout rule.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

Lets not go down that road again. A fortification claimed by an army is 100% a unit. No one should be debating that point.

FlingitNow's logic is not that the fortification is not a unit and therefore cannot redeploy, but rather that it lacks a unit type. With out a unit type is does not fall into one of the two categories establish in the scout rule.

Okay, fair enough, my bad. Not having a unit type would seem to place it in the 12" category as the most reasonable recourse.

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Out of curiosity... why is that important here?

To redeploy 6" you must have a unit type of Infantry, MC, Artillery or Walker.

To redeploy 12" must have any other unit type.

With no unit type you don't fall into either category thus have no permission to redeploy any distance. Hence why Fortifications can't scout redeploy.

But logically that doesn't following:

IF (unit type = Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 6 inches)

IF (unit type =/= Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 12 inches)

So, if unit type is null, then null is not infantry, monstrous creature, artillery, or walker, which means that as a unit with Scout, it'd be redeployed 12".

The unit type isn't "null". Unity type is a property the fortification does not possess.

Poor Bob lost both of his eyes in the war and they have been removed. Bob is at a party and the host decides to play a game. He ask every with blue eyes to stand on the left side of the room, and every one with eyes of any other color to stand on the right side of the room. Where should poor Bob stand? The absence of an eye color does not qualify Bob as a person with eyes of a color other then blue and having eyes of a color other then blue is not the same as not having blue eyes.

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Out of curiosity... why is that important here?

To redeploy 6" you must have a unit type of Infantry, MC, Artillery or Walker.

To redeploy 12" must have any other unit type.

With no unit type you don't fall into either category thus have no permission to redeploy any distance. Hence why Fortifications can't scout redeploy.

But logically that doesn't following:

IF (unit type = Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 6 inches)

IF (unit type =/= Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 12 inches)

So, if unit type is null, then null is not infantry, monstrous creature, artillery, or walker, which means that as a unit with Scout, it'd be redeployed 12".

Your second if statement does not correlate to the rules. The rukes require you to have a unit type that is different to Inf/MC etc. But it still requires a unit type. So null is not a valid option.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Poor Bob lost both of his eyes in the war and they have been removed. Bob is at a party and the host decides to play a game. He ask every with blue eyes to stand on the left side of the room, and every one with eyes of any other color to stand on the right side of the room. Where should poor Bob stand? The absence of an eye color does not qualify Bob as a person with eyes of a color other then blue and having eyes of a color other then blue is not the same as not having blue eyes.

Null is a term used to describe something that is non-existent. Since it's a unit without a unit type, null unit type means "no unit type". In the situation you've described, the logical choice is for Bob to go to the side where the not-blue eyes group is going. Having no eyes that are blue means he goes there.

And FlingItNow, the rules do not require you to have a unit type for this, it just states what happens if your unit type is Inf/MC/Artillery/Walkter. Since absence of a unit type means it's Not Inf/Mc/etc, then that's the group it falls in.


EDIT:

I was going to give a story example, but DJGietzen's is actually really good, and shows perfectly why not having something separates you from any group that is "quality: have something".

"Everyone with a red car goes in this line. Everyone else goes in that other line." Would mean that everyone that owns a truck, doesn't own a car, or owns a turbo-hyper-mega-slug goes in that other line.

I thought "Building" would be the unit type in question in most cases, honestly.

But that only matters when you can assign Scout to a Fortification or if it comes with it, of course.

 Yarium wrote:
Null is a term used to describe something that is non-existent. Since it's a unit without a unit type, null unit type means "no unit type". In the situation you've described, the logical choice is for Bob to go to the side where the not-blue eyes group is going. Having no eyes that are blue means he goes there.

You've missed the point. There are two groups asked to move. The 1st requires you have eyes of the color blue. The 2nd requires that you have eyes of a color other than blue. .Both are groups of people with eyes of a color. Bob is not a person of eyes with eyes of a color and therefore does not belong to either group. You've repeated the same mistake here. People with eyes of a color other than blue =/= People who do not have blue eyes. For that to be true it would require every person have an eye color. A statement that Bob proves is false.

Maybe a better example would be.... John Henry Irons, Clark Joseph Kent and Bruce Wayne are at a party. The host decides to play a little game and asks every who has a middle name that begins with A-K to stand on the left side of the room, and every one who's middle name begins with any other letter to stand on the right side of the room. This creates 3 groups.

People with middle names that begin with A-K.
People with middle names that begin with any letter that is not part of the subset A-K (since the full set of letters is known, we can also call this group "People with middle names that begin with L-Z")
People who do not have middle names. (With out a middle name you cannot be some with a middle name that begins with A-K nor can you be some one who has a middle name that begins with L-Z.)

While Clark and John belong to the 1st group, Bruce belongs to the third group. The host of the party has not given instruction to the 3rd group on where to stand.

The fortification/unit type question is the same thing. The lack of a unit type means the scout rule has not given the fortification any permission to redeploy at all.

Wouldn't the "Unit Type" be Battlefield Terrain?

The BRB and everything else I have seen that lists Fortifications you can bring and other terrain datasheets as battlefield terrain right at the top of those data sheets.

BFT works a very particular way. You deploy it at the start of the game. And then it doesn't move.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Null is a term used to describe something that is non-existent. Since it's a unit without a unit type, null unit type means "no unit type". In the situation you've described, the logical choice is for Bob to go to the side where the not-blue eyes group is going. Having no eyes that are blue means he goes there.

You've missed the point. There are two groups asked to move. The 1st requires you have eyes of the color blue. The 2nd requires that you have eyes of a color other than blue. .Both are groups of people with eyes of a color. Bob is not a person of eyes with eyes of a color and therefore does not belong to either group. You've repeated the same mistake here. People with eyes of a color other than blue =/= People who do not have blue eyes. For that to be true it would require every person have an eye color. A statement that Bob proves is false.

Maybe a better example would be.... John Henry Irons, Clark Joseph Kent and Bruce Wayne are at a party. The host decides to play a little game and asks every who has a middle name that begins with A-K to stand on the left side of the room, and every one who's middle name begins with any other letter to stand on the right side of the room. This creates 3 groups.

People with middle names that begin with A-K.
People with middle names that begin with any letter that is not part of the subset A-K (since the full set of letters is known, we can also call this group "People with middle names that begin with L-Z")
People who do not have middle names. (With out a middle name you cannot be some with a middle name that begins with A-K nor can you be some one who has a middle name that begins with L-Z.)

While Clark and John belong to the 1st group, Bruce belongs to the third group. The host of the party has not given instruction to the 3rd group on where to stand.

The fortification/unit type question is the same thing. The lack of a unit type means the scout rule has not given the fortification any permission to redeploy at all.

I see your point here (and yes, this example does make it clearer), except that this is not what's happening in the rules creates two groups - one of A, and one not-A. It specifically says "any other unit type". This means "unit type of those which were not previously mentioned", which is just 2 groups.

That's why the eye colour one is pertinent. If the host (who is a real jerk by the way, what with Bob there and all) asks everyone with blue eyes to go to one side, and everyone else to go to the other side, then it's clear that Bob goes to the other side. Now, I see what you're saying "but they need eyes to begin with, since he asks people with eyes, and whose eyes are any other colour", but that would be a calling out that having eyes is important.

As a Building, it still has a unit type, just that the returned result is "null" or "error" or "no response".

Let's say Bob's being a jerk. He knows he doesn't have any eyes, but has covered them up for the whole party. When asked this question, someone just says "well, are the blue or not?", he'd say, "well, they're not blue", and goes in the other group.


NOTE: Since Buildings say they use the same rules as Transports, that makes a Building a Transport. The vehicles are "Vehicle - Transport", so Buildings are, by definition "Building - Transport". As such, I'd argue that the unit type is Transport - which is "not Infantry/Walker/etc."

Neither battle field terrain nor building are unit types. It's like saying Ford made cars scout 6" all other makes of car scout 12". Then you claiming your Motor Cycle can scout 12" because it's car make is Kawasaki...

I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

bluestang10 wrote:
I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

using aspects of the rules for transports does not make buildings unit type transports. Having the words "unit type: vehicle" and transport capacity makes something unit type: vehicle transport.

MCs use aspects of the infantry rules, but are not infantry and I cannot embark a bloodthirster in a rhino.

buildings use aspects of the transport rules, but are not transports or vehicles for that matter.

bluestang10 wrote:
I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

Cool they use aspects of the transport rules does it say it counts as having unit type Vehicle with a transport capacity?

bluestang10 wrote:
I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

You are miss quoting.

It's not "Use the aspects"

It's "Use aspects of"

The thing you wrote says buildings are transports. The thing the book actually says is that they have some features of transports. Like the ability for units to embark/disembark from them and a capacity for how many models fit. What they do not have is the ability to move full out, or tank shock.

And then if you continue reading the rules, they tell you which aspects of Transport vehicle rules that they use. It doesn't give them the Unit Type.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool they use aspects of the transport rules does it say it counts as having unit type Vehicle with a transport capacity?

Actually, buildings do have a transport capacity. Being a Transport also doesn't mean you're a vehicle (see: Tyranid Tyrannocyte). It is also a unit in your army. This means that, by using "treated as Vehicle that can't do these things..." rules, and giving it the sub-type Transport since it uses aspects of the transport rules (most notably - Transport Capacity), we end up with "Building - Transport". It is a unit in your army, so the Terrain Type: Building just means that it's terrain type is that it's also a unit.

It's true. There are 3 Nid units with transport capacity. Harridan, Tyrannocyte, and the Heirophant. None of them are vehicles.

Where did I say buildings didn't have a transport capacity or that only vehicles have a transport capacity?

no one said transports are always vehicles.

It was pointed out that you are not a transport vehicle unless you have the unit type: vehicle and a transport capacity. The -and- ties the two together and means you have to have both.

not just the transport capacity.

You are miss quoting.

It's not "Use the aspects"

It's "Use aspects of"

The thing you wrote says buildings are transports. The thing the book actually says is that they have some features of transports. Like the ability for units to embark/disembark from them and a capacity for how many models fit. What they do not have is the ability to move full out, or tank shock.

And again, keep reading the rules and they tell you what aspects they use. It never says that they use ALL of the aspects.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

Lets not go down that road again. A fortification claimed by an army is 100% a unit. No one should be debating that point.

FlingitNow's logic is not that the fortification is not a unit and therefore cannot redeploy, but rather that it lacks a unit type. With out a unit type is does not fall into one of the two categories establish in the scout rule.

Okay, fair enough, my bad. Not having a unit type would seem to place it in the 12" category as the most reasonable recourse.

I'm sorry? You call that reasonable? Do you seriously believe that this is intent of the scout redeployment? Thst it is reasonable to think that a building is a better scout than an actual scout?

In any case I believe FlingitNow got it right, and if someone tried that against me I would simply forfeit the game and find another opponent.

Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Lance845 wrote:
Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Because you deploy it just like any other unit in your army, because you could give it scout with a warlord trait ( which is different from the OP opponent who put scout units in it and said it could scout, which is not possible). However the discussion was about whether or not scout would apply based on building not having a unit type. In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type. So I know what the majority will say...SEE.

I do see your point that it does not say unit type, however I can see were there is a gap. And no buildings cannot move during the game, but you can move it as many times as you want during deployment before the game starts, so I still think you would be able to give scout to a fortification. I do not plan on ever doing this as an fyi, I have been trying to see it from someone elses mind and I can see how people would think it was legal.

bluestang10 wrote:
In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type.

No. Stronghold Assault doesn't just say 'type'. It is quite specific in its use of the term 'Terrain Type' in the datasheets. 'Terrain Type' does not equal 'Unit Type'.

bluestang10 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Because you deploy it just like any other unit in your army,

No you don't. You deploy fortifications when you set up normal terain and before anyone places units. It's part of the step where you and your opponent take turns placing terrain pieces. If it wasn't you could just place the terrain pieces in such a way that the person who paid for a large building would have nowhere to actually put it.

In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type. So I know what the majority will say...SEE.

I do see your point that it does not say unit type, however I can see were there is a gap. And no buildings cannot move during the game, but you can move it as many times as you want during deployment before the game starts, so I still think you would be able to give scout to a fortification. I do not plan on ever doing this as an fyi, I have been trying to see it from someone elses mind and I can see how people would think it was legal.

Again, it does not deploy like a normal unit, so the normal deployment rules don't apply.

Lance845 wrote:

bluestang10 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Because you deploy it just like any other unit in your army,

No you don't. You deploy fortifications when you set up normal terain and before anyone places units. It's part of the step where you and your opponent take turns placing terrain pieces. If it wasn't you could just place the terrain pieces in such a way that the person who paid for a large building would have nowhere to actually put it.

In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type. So I know what the majority will say...SEE.

I do see your point that it does not say unit type, however I can see were there is a gap. And no buildings cannot move during the game, but you can move it as many times as you want during deployment before the game starts, so I still think you would be able to give scout to a fortification. I do not plan on ever doing this as an fyi, I have been trying to see it from someone elses mind and I can see how people would think it was legal.

Again, it does not deploy like a normal unit, so the normal deployment rules don't apply.

You are wrong (sorry to say it like that) but on page 130 of the BrB under fortification- fortifications can be included in a player's army or used as neutral secenery controlled by neither side. 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 other models.

So I should be able to set it up anywere I want during my deployment, and treat it like all other units.

A vehicle is a unit type, they just have thier own section, so if you follow that you should come to the conclusion that a building/fortification that is following aspects of vehicles and is beging deployed as a unit in your army to give you a defensive advantage (because thats why you take them) should be able to scout (givent that ability). And since when is that news that it can zoom around as fast as a jetbike, you can give scout to a freaking titan and scout move him 12" so why is so hard to think that you can scout a defensive fortification that you are deploying with your army? I mean i know probably was not RAI for you to be able to scout a fortification, but given everything that is the book, it sure does apear that you can.

I just read all that.

I am now like Bob - I have no eyes... or a head. As it just exploded.

bluestang10 wrote:
A vehicle is a unit type, they just have thier own section, so if you follow that you should come to the conclusion that a building/fortification that is following aspects of vehicles and is beging deployed as a unit in your army to give you a defensive advantage (because thats why you take them) should be able to scout (givent that ability).

For the third time, the rules for buildings tell you what aspects of vehicles apply to them. It doesn't give you carte blanche to treat them as vehicles for any and all purposes. You only use the characteristics of vehicles that the rules direct you to use.

Lance845 fortifications are deployed with your army as normal now. It changed from 6th which deployed as you've stated.

Bluestang10 it says Terrain Type as I stated all along, not unit type and just type. I think we're done here now?

If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (...).

My understanding is that only dedicated transports can benefit from an embarked unit having the scout special rule.

How does a fortification get the scout rule?

but this has been fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are warlord traits that you can give scout to units that do not have scout prior to game start

 Yarium wrote:
I see your point here (and yes, this example does make it clearer), except that this is not what's happening in the rules creates two groups - one of A, and one not-A. It specifically says "any other unit type". This means "unit type of those which were not previously mentioned", which is just 2 groups.

Here is what the rules actualy say. "If the unit is Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature, each model can redeploy anywhere entirely within 6" of its current position. If it is any other unit type, each model can instead redeploy anywhere entirely within 12" of its current position. "

Group A = Models with unit types that are Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature.
Groub B= Models with unit types that are not Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature.
Group C= Models with no unit type.

Groub B =/= Models that are not in Group A. This is where your logic keeps faulting. Both Group A & B are only comprised of models with a unit type. Models with no unit type cannot possibly be part of either of those groups.

 Stephanius wrote:
How does a fortification get the scout rule?

By being taken as part of a Skitarii Maniple is just one way.

 Yarium wrote:
except that this is not what's happening in the rules creates two groups - one of A, and one not-A. It specifically says "any other unit type". This means "unit type of those which were not previously mentioned", which is just 2 groups.

As has been said by others, you are misinterpreting "A or not-A"

It would have to say "If the unit is Unit Type 'X'. If it is anything other..." for you to be correct (A or "anything that is not A")

But the Rule says "If it is any other unit type,..." which clearly mean it has to be a Unit Type. "Any other" Unit Type, but a "Unit Type" nonetheless...
(Which Fortifications is not)

 FlingitNow wrote:
In short Buildings can't scout redeploy as they have no permission to redeploy any number of inches. So how far you can redeploy is based on unit type, buildings don't have a unit type thus have no distance they can redeploy.

Well, redeployment is not movement, because if it was, my skitarii would be able to scout 9", which they are not allowed because according to most people scouting =/= moving.
Following that train of thought, any fortification I bring in my skitarii maniple gets scout and should be allowed to scout 12" (because any unit that doesn't have "infantry" scouts 12").

Well, redeployment is not movement, because if it was, my skitarii would be able to scout 9", which they are not allowed because according to most people scouting =/= moving. 
Following that train of thought, any fortification I bring in my skitarii maniple gets scout and should be allowed to scout 12" (because any unit that doesn't have "infantry" scouts 12"). 

Good to know that you didn't bother reading the thread like you didn't the rules. Or even the post you quoted. Why mention movement? How is that relevant to my post or the rules at hand?

You don't get to redeploy 12" because you don't meet the cruteria for that. Building is not a unit type it is a terrain type. So as I stated Buildings can't scout redeploy as they have no permission to redeploy any number of inches. 

 FlingitNow wrote:

Well, redeployment is not movement, because if it was, my skitarii would be able to scout 9", which they are not allowed because according to most people scouting =/= moving. 
Following that train of thought, any fortification I bring in my skitarii maniple gets scout and should be allowed to scout 12" (because any unit that doesn't have "infantry" scouts 12"). 

Good to know that you didn't bother reading the thread like you didn't the rules. Or even the post you quoted. Why mention movement? How is that relevant to my post or the rules at hand?

You don't get to redeploy 12" because you don't meet the cruteria for that. Building is not a unit type it is a terrain type. So as I stated Buildings can't scout redeploy as they have no permission to redeploy any number of inches. 

Yeah sorry, was a bit hasty there, I realized as soon as I hit "submit".

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
except that this is not what's happening in the rules creates two groups - one of A, and one not-A. It specifically says "any other unit type". This means "unit type of those which were not previously mentioned", which is just 2 groups.

As has been said by others, you are misinterpreting "A or not-A"

It would have to say "If the unit is Unit Type 'X'. If it is anything other..." for you to be correct (A or "anything that is not A")

But the Rule says "If it is any other unit type,..." which clearly mean it has to be a Unit Type. "Any other" Unit Type, but a "Unit Type" nonetheless...
(Which Fortifications is not)

That's a very good argument.
I believe there was a bit in the BRB that said that for all rules and purposes, buildings should be considered vehicles unless otherwise specified. I don't have the rulebook on me so I can't say with 100% certainty. Although that might be for shooting only.

 Ond Angel wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Pg 110 of the mini Rulebook-
"The main difference between a building and actual vehicles is that they can't move,". Second paragraph, and bold. So, if you are moving the building, that is violating the rule. You keep calling it a Scout MOVE so... nope.

On this, as per the rules for scout it technically is a redeployment rather than a straight up move. That's why you don't take difficult or dangerous terrain checks. So if you could give a building scout through some means it's perfectly viable. The way you would treat this in fluff isit was camo nets and a fake bunker?

Or...

Spoiler:

CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!

So true

That's not what it says. It says buildings use aspects of the Transport Vehicle rules and specifies which aspects those are. Scout moves us not listed as an aspect nor is unit type.

This seams clear a claimed building is a unit but it has no unit type.

So you could give it the scout rule but would not be able to redeploy it as no instructions are given as to the distance that you would be able to redeploy with the scout move.

DaPino wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
except that this is not what's happening in the rules creates two groups - one of A, and one not-A. It specifically says "any other unit type". This means "unit type of those which were not previously mentioned", which is just 2 groups.

As has been said by others, you are misinterpreting "A or not-A"

It would have to say "If the unit is Unit Type 'X'. If it is anything other..." for you to be correct (A or "anything that is not A")

But the Rule says "If it is any other unit type,..." which clearly mean it has to be a Unit Type. "Any other" Unit Type, but a "Unit Type" nonetheless...
(Which Fortifications is not)

That's a very good argument.
I believe there was a bit in the BRB that said that for all rules and purposes, buildings should be considered vehicles unless otherwise specified. I don't have the rulebook on me so I can't say with 100% certainty. Although that might be for shooting only.

Also covered earlier in this thread. The full (actual) Rule is this:

"Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules."

They are not considered Vehicles "for all Rules purposes". They only "use aspects of" Transport Rules, such as having transport capacity ("Just like a Transport vehicle"), entering and exiting ("works the same as embarking or disembarking from a vehicle") or Shooting and Close combat ("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.").

None of these give the building a Unit Type.
Buildings do not have a Unit Type.

Devils Advocate. Wouldn't Scout redeployment fall under Special Rule Effects? If so we would treat it like a vehicle.

 Happyjew wrote:
Devils Advocate. Wouldn't Scout redeployment fall under Special Rule Effects? If so we would treat it like a vehicle.

Could be, but you'd have to explain the Sub-Heading:

"Attacking Buildings"

If you count Scout as "Attacking Buildings" then i'd let you attack your own building with your Scout move

 Stephanius wrote:

If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (...).

My understanding is that only dedicated transports can benefit from an embarked unit having the scout special rule.

How does a fortification get the scout rule?

With all the bickering about Unit Type, people seem to miss this (which was also pointed out within 3 replies of the OP I believe).
A building, even if you are treating it as a vehicle, is NOT a Dedicated Transport.
How did it get the Scout USR conferred to it (in the OP's case)?

Unit/Unit Type is irrelevant. Scout USR is conferred on a dedicated transport, as per the rules.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (...).

My understanding is that only dedicated transports can benefit from an embarked unit having the scout special rule.

How does a fortification get the scout rule?

With all the bickering about Unit Type, people seem to miss this (which was also pointed out within 3 replies of the OP I believe).
A building, even if you are treating it as a vehicle, is NOT a Dedicated Transport.
How did it get the Scout USR conferred to it (in the OP's case)?

Unit/Unit Type is irrelevant. Scout USR is conferred on a dedicated transport, as per the rules.

It was also pointed out afterwards that the Skitarii Maniple gives fortifications (and all other contained units) the Scout USR and there are some Warlord traits that can do it too. This has absolutely nothing to do with dedicated transports.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (...).

My understanding is that only dedicated transports can benefit from an embarked unit having the scout special rule.

How does a fortification get the scout rule?

With all the bickering about Unit Type, people seem to miss this (which was also pointed out within 3 replies of the OP I believe).
A building, even if you are treating it as a vehicle, is NOT a Dedicated Transport.
How did it get the Scout USR conferred to it (in the OP's case)?

Unit/Unit Type is irrelevant. Scout USR is conferred on a dedicated transport, as per the rules.

It was also pointed out afterwards that the Skitarii Maniple gives fortifications (and all other contained units) the Scout USR and there are some Warlord traits that can do it too. This has absolutely nothing to do with dedicated transports.

Which does not contradict my statement in any way, and has nothing (as far as I can tell) to do with the original posters question.
If you are discussing something else, it would probably be best in another thread, even though it's been debated ad nauseum in multiple threads already to no avail.

 gummyofallbears wrote:

No matter what, I learned that I will never play against him again.
happy wargaming,

-Mikey

Knowing is have the battle, Yo Joe!


Pg 110 of the mini Rulebook-
"The main difference between a building and actual vehicles is that they can't move,"

That seems to be the best answer and HIWPI.

 kronk wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:

No matter what, I learned that I will never play against him again.
happy wargaming,

-Mikey

Knowing is have the battle, Yo Joe!


Pg 110 of the mini Rulebook-
"The main difference between a building and actual vehicles is that they can't move,"

That seems to be the best answer and HIWPI.

I don't see the relevance of that rule or how it in anyway effect HYWPI? Are you saying that you'd allow Scout Redeploy because the only difference between a building and a transport is it can't move?

Rorschach9 wrote:
Which does not contradict my statement in any way, and has nothing (as far as I can tell) to do with the original posters question.
If you are discussing something else, it would probably be best in another thread, even though it's been debated ad nauseum in multiple threads already to no avail.

The OP's question was "can fortifications scout move?" and that is all this thread is discussing. The situation he described was addressed but we have stayed within the subject of the thread. Also when a tangental point is raised on dakkadakka it is not customary to start another thread to discuss it. So the idea that the discussions so far have had " nothing to do with the original posters question" is inaccurate to say the least.

P 130 "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."

Therefore, a warlord trait that gives units scout would allow a fortification to be redeployed within 12" of it's starting position. Models with scout can only confer it to dedicated transports, and so would scout out of the building.

 JamesY wrote:
P 130 "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."

Therefore, a warlord trait that gives units scout would allow a fortification to be redeployed within 12" of it's starting position. Models with scout can only confer it to dedicated transports, and so would scout out of the building.

Why artibitrarily choose 12" for the redeploy? Also why contribute if you haven't bothered reading a single page of the thread as this point has been covered on literally every page several times?

 JamesY wrote:
P 130 "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."

Therefore, a warlord trait that gives units scout would allow a fortification to be redeployed within 12" of it's starting position. Models with scout can only confer it to dedicated transports, and so would scout out of the building.

Why 12 inches?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
P 130 "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."

Therefore, a warlord trait that gives units scout would allow a fortification to be redeployed within 12" of it's starting position. Models with scout can only confer it to dedicated transports, and so would scout out of the building.

Why artibitrarily choose 12" for the redeploy? Also why contribute if you haven't bothered reading a single page of the thread as this point has been covered on literally every page several times?

12" as defined by the scout rule. I'm sorry, I didn't realise repetition was forbidden on dakka. It's not like I see the same posts over and over again elsewhere on discussions. And thank you for your polite tone.

Except 12" is for unit types that are not Infantry, Artillery, Walker nor Monstrous Creature.

If you do not have a unit type, you do not fall into that category (nor do you fall into the category of "Unit Type={Infantry, Artillery, Walker, Monstrous Creature}".

 JamesY wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
P 130 "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."

Therefore, a warlord trait that gives units scout would allow a fortification to be redeployed within 12" of it's starting position. Models with scout can only confer it to dedicated transports, and so would scout out of the building.

Why artibitrarily choose 12" for the redeploy? Also why contribute if you haven't bothered reading a single page of the thread as this point has been covered on literally every page several times?

12" as defined by the scout rule. I'm sorry, I didn't realise repetition was forbidden on dakka. It's not like I see the same posts over and over again elsewhere on discussions. And thank you for your polite tone.

It is a point that has been brought up 2-3 times at least on each page. The scout rule does not say 12" for fortifications. It says 6" for Inf, Artillery,MCs & Walkers and 12" for all other unit types. It says nothing about models without a unit type like fortifications.

It says using the same deployment rules as other models. P9 the models that make up your 40k army must be organized in to units. If you're paid points for it, it is a unit, the fact that buildings aren't clearly labelled I take as poor editting. I agree that the wording is exceedingly poor, and think it ridiculous that a trench might move, but as written it can happen.

What has being a unit got to do with anything? Where did anyone mention that not being a unit was a) true for a fortification or b) remotely relevant to why they can't make a scout redeploy?

 JamesY wrote:
It says using the same deployment rules as other models. P9 the models that make up your 40k army must be organized in to units. If you're paid points for it, it is a unit, the fact that buildings aren't clearly labelled I take as poor editting. I agree that the wording is exceedingly poor, and think it ridiculous that a trench might move, but as written it can happen.

"Unit type" is a terribly misleading name. Its a property of a model and has nothing to do with if that model is in a unit or not. I think we all can agree that a fortification in your army is in fact a unit but being a unit does not grant the model a 'unit type'.

It's not a unit. It doesn't have a unit type. The rules have to specify that you set them up at the same time as your units (of 130). As has been stated before, they are types of Terrain (of 183).

Chardun, you should quote your comment in the other thread.

Bah...


If they're units, then why do they have a Terrain Type? Why aren't they listed under Unit Types? Why are their rules under Battlefield Terrain section of the rulebook? Why does page 130 have to specify that you deploy your Fortification with the units in your army? If it's a unit, then why do they have to specific how to shoot at one? I could go on.

A vague two sentence paragraph on page 9, that doesn't mention fortifications at all, doesn't provide empirical proof that it is a unit.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except 12" is for unit types that are not Infantry, Artillery, Walker nor Monstrous Creature.

If you do not have a unit type, you do not fall into that category (nor do you fall into the category of "Unit Type={Infantry, Artillery, Walker, Monstrous Creature}".

100% this.

So it cam be given infiltrate, but it can't actually redeploy any inches as only those unit types specified can redeploy 6 inches (or 12 inches for those other unit types mentioned).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Except 12" is for unit types that are not Infantry, Artillery, Walker nor Monstrous Creature.

If you do not have a unit type, you do not fall into that category (nor do you fall into the category of "Unit Type={Infantry, Artillery, Walker, Monstrous Creature}".

100% this.

So it cam be given infiltrate, but it can't actually redeploy any inches as only those unit types specified can redeploy 6 inches (or 12 inches for those other unit types mentioned).

Except that it doesn't have a Unit Type at all, it has a Terrain Type.

And anyways, even if it does what it says you "think" it can, how are you going to take a Fortification as a DEDICATED TRANSPORT for a unit with Scout and/or Infiltrate. That's the only way to give a vehicle to receive those rules if it doesn't have them inherently.

 Chardun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Except 12" is for unit types that are not Infantry, Artillery, Walker nor Monstrous Creature.

If you do not have a unit type, you do not fall into that category (nor do you fall into the category of "Unit Type={Infantry, Artillery, Walker, Monstrous Creature}".

100% this.

So it cam be given infiltrate, but it can't actually redeploy any inches as only those unit types specified can redeploy 6 inches (or 12 inches for those other unit types mentioned).

Except that it doesn't have a Unit Type at all, it has a Terrain Type.

And anyways, even if it does what it says you "think" it can, how are you going to take a Fortification as a DEDICATED TRANSPORT for a unit with Scout and/or Infiltrate. That's the only way to give a vehicle to receive those rules if it doesn't have them inherently.

So much wrong with this post. First unit types has NOTHING to do with units it is a model property. The models in your army are formed into units, Fortifications are models in your army so it follows they are units. However they don't have unit types.

This prevents them from Scouting any distance as they are neither eligible for the 6" scout nor the 12" scout. The post you're quoting says this and actually agrees that Forts can't scout.

Finally no one mentioned Dedicated Transports as that is not relevant. There are multiple ways to give a Fortification Scout and we are discussing the impact of those. So why even mention dedicated transports?

Building are units
"• A claimed building is a unit in the controlling player’s army
• At the start of the game, all buildings that were taken as part of a player’s army are ‘claimed’ by the owning player.`" p.112

look in the rule book page 112 at the top it's crazy how people can argue.

This is asked like twice a month it's getting silly

they cant scout though because they don't have a "unit type"

As pointed out,
A) units with scout embarked in a building give the building nothing, because it isn't a dedicated transport.

B) Buildings don't have unit type and fall between the rules of scout (6" for some others, 12" for other unit types, no idea what to do with no unit type).

C) Additional mess of multi-part buildings.
You'd also have to deal with this part of the building rules for a fortress of redemption:
Page 112, under multi-part buildings.

After discussing units moving into 1 part of a multi-part building: In all other regards, the buildings that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models.

My farseer rolls up "An Eye on Distant Events"; Choose up to D3 units in your army. These units gain the Scout special rule. I roll a 1 on my D3.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Chardun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Except 12" is for unit types that are not Infantry, Artillery, Walker nor Monstrous Creature.

If you do not have a unit type, you do not fall into that category (nor do you fall into the category of "Unit Type={Infantry, Artillery, Walker, Monstrous Creature}".

100% this.

So it cam be given infiltrate, but it can't actually redeploy any inches as only those unit types specified can redeploy 6 inches (or 12 inches for those other unit types mentioned).

Except that it doesn't have a Unit Type at all, it has a Terrain Type.

And anyways, even if it does what it says you "think" it can, how are you going to take a Fortification as a DEDICATED TRANSPORT for a unit with Scout and/or Infiltrate. That's the only way to give a vehicle to receive those rules if it doesn't have them inherently.

So much wrong with this post. First unit types has NOTHING to do with units it is a model property. The models in your army are formed into units, Fortifications are models in your army so it follows they are units. However they don't have unit types.

This prevents them from Scouting any distance as they are neither eligible for the 6" scout nor the 12" scout. The post you're quoting says this and actually agrees that Forts can't scout.

Finally no one mentioned Dedicated Transports as that is not relevant. There are multiple ways to give a Fortification Scout and we are discussing the impact of those. So why even mention dedicated transports?

(Emphasis mine)

Stop saying this (The underlined and orange text), it is simply not true.

Fortifications are not models.

Okay so the OP got massively cheated by a douche. Why is this four pages ??

Old time sake, was bored and drifted through here on an old bookmark, and no book as I am 'retired.'

It has never been the "Unit Type" of the Building causing the issue, but the Warlord Trait or Special Rule granting the 'Scout' or 'Deep Strike' or 'insert other Deployment manipulation rule here' to begin with. Timing is twice as critical with Buildings as it is with other Rules, as they do not have 'Unit Types' and are not even Models by default. Even purchasing them for your Army requires secondary Rules, found outside of the Basic Rulebook as Game Workshop has incompetent editors, in order to be Rule-as-Written legal. They have Advanced Rules that kick in to give them X or Y at specific Times, so all we need to do is look at those Rules to find a 'technically correct' answer by applying one to the situation in question.

When do you apply Warlord Traits granting other Special Rules to a Unit?
When does the Claimed Building rule take affect?

To date I have seen only one situation which gets around the timing restraint, allowing the legal deep striking of any Building. The details are a little forgotten, so the original writer should come forth with them again. It involved a lot of loophole manipulation with two very unlikely army combinations, Necron and Dark Eldar, just to get the Building into Reserve with this timing problem in mind. If you see any other combinations, call shenanigans and bring it to this site for more closer examination by someone less 'retired.' If you want to try the Necron thing yourself, cause deep striking buildings can be hilarious, and the original writer of that combination does not post... I believe it was a Necron Unique that allowed units to be reserved or re-deployed after the game started... and Buildings lacking factions can be very useful at times.

PS:
Stating the problem comes from how far the Building would Scout, because the lack of a Unit Type, is to state that Buildings can Scout to begin with. It does not entertain the prospect that the lack of details within the two rule interaction could stem from an illegal combination in the first place... come on, the authors are bad but they might not be that bad! Besides, a Rule combination leading to the 'Broken Outcome' does not make anything illegal, nor does it matter if one answer 'breaks less' as that does not make it technically 'more correct' either. Buildings are a 'unique butterfly' as they exist on timing and Advanced Rule interactions, so there will be breaks, but the authors have gone to such extents not to create a Unit Type: Building that they do appear to be keeping at least half an eye on the interactions here.

You have to go more then 'Warlord Trait' deep to get these Re-deploy Special Rules to apply in the first place.

We're not just talking about Warlord traits. We're talking about buildings who have been given Scout by their Detachment rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
Old time sake, was bored and drifted through here on an old bookmark, and no book as I am 'retired.'

It has never been the "Unit Type" of the Building causing the issue, but the Warlord Trait or Special Rule granting the 'Scout' or 'Deep Strike' or 'insert other Deployment manipulation rule here' to begin with. Timing is twice as critical with Buildings as it is with other Rules, as they do not have 'Unit Types' and are not even Models by default. Even purchasing them for your Army requires secondary Rules, found outside of the Basic Rulebook

Actually some of them are in the basic rule book now. Some are data sheets just like any other expansion model.

as Game Workshop has incompetent editors, in order to be Rule-as-Written legal. They have Advanced Rules that kick in to give them X or Y at specific Times, so all we need to do is look at those Rules to find a 'technically correct' answer by applying one to the situation in question.

When do you apply Warlord Traits granting other Special Rules to a Unit?
When does the Claimed Building rule take affect?

To date I have seen only one situation which gets around the timing restraint, allowing the legal deep striking of any Building. The details are a little forgotten, so the original writer should come forth with them again. It involved a lot of loophole manipulation with two very unlikely army combinations, Necron and Dark Eldar, just to get the Building into Reserve with this timing problem in mind. If you see any other combinations, call shenanigans and bring it to this site for more closer examination by someone less 'retired.' If you want to try the Necron thing yourself, cause deep striking buildings can be hilarious, and the original writer of that combination does not post... I believe it was a Necron Unique that allowed units to be reserved or re-deployed after the game started... and Buildings lacking factions can be very useful at times.

PS:
Stating the problem comes from how far the Building would Scout, because the lack of a Unit Type, is to state that Buildings can Scout to begin with. It does not entertain the prospect that the lack of details within the two rule interaction could stem from an illegal combination in the first place... come on, the authors are bad but they might not be that bad! Besides, a Rule combination leading to the 'Broken Outcome' does not make anything illegal, nor does it matter if one answer 'breaks less' as that does not make it technically 'more correct' either. Buildings are a 'unique butterfly' as they exist on timing and Advanced Rule interactions, so there will be breaks, but the authors have gone to such extents not to create a Unit Type: Building that they do appear to be keeping at least half an eye on the interactions here.

You have to go more then 'Warlord Trait' deep to get these Re-deploy Special Rules to apply in the first place.

If you say so. most people on here appear to concede plastic miniature buildings for toy soldiers are indeed models. Many of them even concede they're units (when bought as part of your army list). I find it interesting you think buildings can deep strike but can't scout.

He is correct they can DS with a WWP but can never Scout as has been proven in this very thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also which fortifications are in the core rulebook?

Breton wrote:
If you say so. most people on here appear to concede plastic miniature buildings for toy soldiers are indeed models. Many of them even concede they're units (when bought as part of your army list). I find it interesting you think buildings can deep strike but can't scout.

As far as the 40K rules are concerned, Buildings are not Models. (Even though they are models by real world definition, they are not Models as far as the 40K rules define Model).


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

Every model has a Unit type. Buildings are not models as they do not have a unit type, they are terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breton wrote:
If you say so. most people on here appear to concede plastic miniature buildings for toy soldiers are indeed models. Many of them even concede they're units (when bought as part of your army list). I find it interesting you think buildings can deep strike but can't scout.

As far as the 40K rules are concerned, Buildings are not Models. (Even though they are models by real world definition, they are not Models as far as the 40K rules define Model).


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

Every model has a Unit type. Buildings are not models as they do not have a unit type, they are terrain.

Then how does one take one in one's army? One's army is made of models organized into units.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breton wrote:
If you say so. most people on here appear to concede plastic miniature buildings for toy soldiers are indeed models. Many of them even concede they're units (when bought as part of your army list). I find it interesting you think buildings can deep strike but can't scout.

As far as the 40K rules are concerned, Buildings are not Models. (Even though they are models by real world definition, they are not Models as far as the 40K rules define Model).


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

Every model has a Unit type. Buildings are not models as they do not have a unit type, they are terrain.

Then how does one take one in one's army? One's army is made of models organized into units.

The rules say you can take a fortification...

What are units comprised of?

 FlingitNow wrote:
What are units comprised of?

That question has not bearing on anything in this discussion.

Why not? Fortifications are units. Units
are made of what?

...is a basic rule. Foritifcatoiuns are given the status of units, that does not automatically mean they are exempt from needng a unit type

I understand that Nos, Fortifications certainly can't scout. I'm less convinced by DeathReapers claim that in 7th Fortifications aren't models.

Youre presumably asking whether the lack of unit type means it isnt a model, or whether being in a unit means it must be a model, and the lack of unit type is irrelevant / excepted in some way. Except that you arte not given permission to ignore the requirement to have a unit type, and thus you have the explicit (it is definitely a unit) overriding the implicit (it must also be a model)

I don't think FlingitNow has changed his opinion of the scouting, he's just not swallowing the idea that your model of a fortress isn't a model based on one part of the rulebook that describes models, while ignoring another part that describes the contents of your army list as models.

I'd also argue Fortifications have a specific exception to having a unit type as the building rules state that they don't have one and instead have a terrain type.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'd also argue Fortifications have a specific exception to having a unit type as the building rules state that they don't have one and instead have a terrain type.

That isnt a specific exception though, otherwise would say "despite being a model, it has no unit type. Instead..."

As I said, at best you have implication versus a specific rule stating that a model has constituent components X. If you do not fulfil those, barring a specific rule, you ar enot a model

And the BRB saying your Army list has constituent components Y - models organized into units?

I already covered that. See post at 2015/07/06 10:45:06

It is a vehicle. BRB 110

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.

Everything else between the two is the same. Noticed how it is put in bold. This is intended to be the case.

Please explain why buildings are not vehicles.

Because the rules never define them as Vehicles, as they're not 'Unit Type: Vehicle'.

Same page also in bold in the BRB 110, "treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

rnlmeat0666 wrote:
Same page also in bold in the BRB 110, "treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

Except that is under the "Battlefield Terrian" Chapter, "Attacking Buildings" section.

If you are not attacking the building that clause about treating the building as a vehicle does not apply.

rnlmeat0666 wrote:
Same page also in bold in the BRB 110, "treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

And what is the heading of that section of the rules? And why are you using that section of the rules for anything other than what it says it applies to?

 Ghaz wrote:

rnlmeat0666 wrote:
Same page also in bold in the BRB 110, "treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise."

And what is the heading of that section of the rules? And why are you using that section of the rules for anything other than what it says it applies to?

But it mentions targeted by a psychic power, which isnt always attacking the building. By that degree you can't cast blessings on it as its not an attack. Nor can you apply blessing of the omnissiah or whatever it is to restore hull points as its not an attack.

There is now a detachment that allows Fortification and bestows Scout to everything taken within the Army?

Curious what wording is uses to grant the Scout Special Rule in this situation as it likely has the very same issue as Warlord Traits. Should it singling out Units or Models, as opposed to 'everything selected as part of this Detachment,' it still encounters the timing concern that prevents it from being useful on the tabletop. The writers have created buildings in such a way they do not gain every Rule applied to them by default, only within specific situations, so we do not apply any Rule unless specifically told to do so. If the Rule in question singles out the subject of 'Unit,' then it is a requirement to prove that the Building is a Unit at that point in time.

So, can anyone prove the game officially starts before Scout re-deployment take place?

I've heard it all now... People actually arguing for a frickin' bunker to Scout move. Hehe. Too funny. I think the BRB has a line that says "The Second Most Important Rule: If your opponent tries to Scout move a building, he auto-loses. Please, never play this opponent again."

 HANZERtank wrote:
But it mentions targeted by a psychic power, which isnt always attacking the building.

By its placement in the 'Attacking Buildings' section, it is indeed only referring to psychic powers which are used to attack the building (e.g., Witchfires, etc.).

OK, do are we at least agree whether or not buildings are models and/or units, they do not have a Unit Type, and therefore fall into neither category of distance for redeployment via Scout?

In other words, do we agree that buildings cannot Scout (due to not having a Unit Type)?

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, do are we at least agree whether or not buildings are models and/or units, they do not have a Unit Type, and therefore fall into neither category of distance for redeployment via Scout?

In other words, do we agree that buildings cannot Scout (due to not having a Unit Type)?

Yes