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.

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.