Fortifications and Melta/Lance/Armourbane.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sirlynchmob**

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

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

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

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

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

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

A building is therefore a non-vehicle model.

**DeathReaper**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the basic rules in context talk about infantry models

Not true as I have proven from page 2.

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

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

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

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

A building is therefore a non-vehicle model.

False Premise = false conclusion.

**Leth**

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

**BLADERIKER**

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

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