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.

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

@ night howler and jinxdragon

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

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

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

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

So a good point for this debate.

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

Imperial Bastion:

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

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

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

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

I do believe precedent shows the way forward here:

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

 foto69man wrote:
So a good point for this debate.

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

Imperial Bastion:

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

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

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

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

I do believe precedent shows the way forward here:

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

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

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

Sunhero wrote:
@ night howler and jinxdragon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is why this thread is 7 pages long.

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

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

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which would impossible to target.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


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

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

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

It has not been disproven.

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

What is the buildings unit type.

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

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

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

which would impossible to target.

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:


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

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

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

It has not been disproven.

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

What is the buildings unit type.

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

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

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

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

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

 foto69man wrote:


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

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

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

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

This is also false, to an extent.

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

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

They also all have Unit types that define them.

Terrain does not have a unit type.

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

Terrain Type does not = Unit type...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The implications of treating fortifications as units is huge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All models have a unit type.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this solves a lot of problems.

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