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 wrote:
It is a model rule's wise though, It's even flat out called a model.

But doesn't have a unit type or a profile,. so even if you argue that it is a model rules-wise (which, as I mentioned, is questionable) that doesn't actually mean anything.

And as you agree it's not an exhaustive list.

The examples are not an exhaustive list.

That doesn't mean that something that doesn't have a unit type can be considered to be a unit. A cabbage, for example, is not a unit.

The unit types are as listed on page 44, and in the vehicle section. Anything that isn't given one of those unit types is not a unit.

There is two things I would like to bring up and I am going to be dirty and quick about it, seeing I have spent some time on this matter and still do not know the best way to word my conclusions.

The first is the term 'aspects of' is not the same as 'all of.'

In this case we are informed we follow aspects of vehicle transport rules but we are not informed to follow all the vehicle transport rules. Given that the term 'aspects of' does not include every situation, it is up to the book to define the extent of the rules we follow and not for us to assume we follow X or Y rule without express permission. This defining process is done throughout the rest of the sub-section outlining which aspects akin to transport rules buildings follow, as well as any unique rules buildings have all to themselves of which many differ from established vehicle rules. Any situations not addressed by this sub-section are more likely to fall into the 'aspects not used' category then to be 'aspects used but not addressed,' but I do respect that an argument can be made because of bad writing. The term 'aspects of' should never be used, as it does creates gray zones as to what extent the writers intended unless every possible situation is addressed.

The second is the term enemy and how poorly defined it is.

I have spent more of my time then I would like to admit, it is why I am not writing three pages of research notes, trying to figure out how the word enemy is defined in the book. The closest I came to a definition is page 8 but that is just addressing how some rules will talk about 'opposing and controlling players' without explaining the relationship to models that do not have such rules. At this point I would be very grateful if someone can point me to a page and paragraph where this term is defined so I can add that to my future arguments. It could be a single line that I have overlooked, berried in the depths of the book itself, as that occurs at times. This is key because part of the argument as to why the 'attacking building' rules even exist stems from the fact buildings are not considered 'enemy units,' yet the divide appears to be if this is because of the 'enemy' part or 'unit' part.

If the definition of enemy can include terrain of any type, either because your opponent places it or because it isn't a default part of your army to begin with, then it is clear the 'attacking building' rules exist to address the fact it is not a unit, therefore normally not a valid target for attack.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It is a model rule's wise though, It's even flat out called a model.

But doesn't have a unit type or a profile,. so even if you argue that it is a model rules-wise (which, as I mentioned, is questionable) that doesn't actually mean anything.

in this case it does mean something, once we can establish, Yes it is a model. Then we can use the controlling vs opposing player rules to establish at a minimum, It only works for the one who brought it. And shall help avoid the coming arguments of "it's just a piece of terrain now, so why can't I shoot it as well"

And once it's agreed that yes buildings are units, just like tanks are units even though they don't have a unit type. Not even on pg 44. We can also cement that idea in that you brought it, its yours and only works on your turn. And even if you don't want to call it a unit, it counts as a unit in all regards for shooting and assaulting. Which means it might as well just be called a unit. And from there when people go to shoot with the Firestorm we can ask them to declare both targets and shoot them at the same time (as per unit rules) without shooting one gun, see if it explodes, then shoot the second one.

sirlynchmob wrote:
in this case it does mean something, once we can establish, Yes it is a model. Then we can use the controlling vs opposing player rules to establish at a minimum, It only works for the one who brought it.

But doesn't establish that it does actually work.

And once it's agreed that yes buildings are units,...

And that's where the argument falls down, because this is most certainly not agreed, because you have yet to provide any rules that actually establish their status as a unit.

We can also cement that idea in that you brought it, its yours and only works on your turn.

Bastions would like to have a word with you.

And even if you don't want to call it a unit, it counts as a unit in all regards for shooting and assaulting.

No it doesn't. It counts as a unit for being shot and assaulted, in certain specific circumtances.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
in this case it does mean something, once we can establish, Yes it is a model. Then we can use the controlling vs opposing player rules to establish at a minimum, It only works for the one who brought it.

But doesn't establish that it does actually work.

And once it's agreed that yes buildings are units,...

And that's where the argument falls down, because this is most certainly not agreed, because you have yet to provide any rules that actually establish their status as a unit.

We can also cement that idea in that you brought it, its yours and only works on your turn.

Bastions would like to have a word with you.

And even if you don't want to call it a unit, it counts as a unit in all regards for shooting and assaulting.

No it doesn't. It counts as a unit for being shot and assaulted, in certain specific circumtances.

Well for bastions, it used to be simple, whoever was in it, had control of it. Then these things came along.

I do see where you are coming from, but that also leads to these things not working at all.

So maybe we should rethink some of our presuppositions and figure out how these things work within the rules, even if that means labeling them models and/or units. Because I believe I have stated enough rules to establish it RAW, or at least accept its RAI.

So how exactly do you see these things working?

sirlynchmob wrote:
I do see where you are coming from, but that also leads to these things not working at all.

As the rules currently stand, that would indeed appear to be the case. You're going to need to use house rules for the Vengeance battery to function.


This isn't the first time that GW introduced rules that don't work as they intended. See Captain Shrike, Sammael's Warlord Trait, C: DH allied Assassins, and transports for Grotesques in the original DE codex, for four straight off the top of my head.

"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons." P. 77

This establishes that vehicles are indeed units.

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

The Vengeance weapon battery does not have a unit type, it is terrain, and not a unit.

Obvious Answer: "It's clearly just another part of your army, counting as a Bastion that cannot be entered"

Rules Lawyering WAAC donkey cave answer: "Blah blah its technically a piece of terrain blah blah it'll shoot your own guys if you go near it blah blah its not worth any VP if you kill it blah blah I win"

That this game even provokes such debates is a huge mark against it.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Obvious Answer: "It's clearly just another part of your army, counting as a Bastion that cannot be entered"

Rules Lawyering WAAC donkey cave answer: "Blah blah its technically a piece of terrain blah blah it'll shoot your own guys if you go near it blah blah its not worth any VP if you kill it blah blah I win"

That this game even provokes such debates is a huge mark against it.

Then don't play it. Some of us are able to negotiate a sensible outcome and still have fun.

That being said, are you guys seriously going to tell an opponent that their Vengeance batteries cannot fire because they are neutral and the rules are in conflict?

Keep in mind that arguments over what the rules actually state, and how we would play it on the table, are two different things. Some of us really like finding all the way the rules fail to work such as the interesting clashes of rules that fail to mesh up right, the loopholes that gray areas create and gaining a deeper insight on rules in general so we can answer such pondering in the future with a more solid understanding on these matters. Not to mention the ability to insult the sorry excuse for editors that Game Workshop hires, the people whom should of caught these sort of errors before the game was released. Hell there are even spelling mistakes throughout these books, the monkeys are not even worth the bananas they are paid!

Personally:
I know I would "house rule" that the clearly obvious intent is what the rules meant to state. While there is nothing which states this fortification has enemies, and a few other problems, it is designed in such a way that it operates as an automatic weapon platform for the side that purchases it. It would really be 'that **** guy' territory to let an opponent deploy a few of these fortifications then laugh and state he simply wasted his point on a pretty little building that does nothing.

If you want to even state it gives a Victory Point when the weapon is destroyed, the closest you get to it being removed from play, I would even be willing to allow that as is is reasonable.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
That being said, are you guys seriously going to tell an opponent that their Vengeance batteries cannot fire because they are neutral and the rules are in conflict?

I would seriously tell an opponent that this is the end result of the rules as they currently stand, yes.

And then we would agree on a house rule to allow the Vengeance to function as intended, and carry on with the game.



It's important to know when the rules don't actually function as you thought they should, if only to remove potential confusion when it does come up at the table. These sorts of discussions are not always ( I would say not even often) people just trying to break the game. Just people trying to get their heads around how the rules actually work.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons." P. 77

This establishes that vehicles are indeed units.

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

The Vengeance weapon battery does not have a unit type, it is terrain, and not a unit.

that bit on pg 77 is fluff, not a rule. And you'll also note that vehicles don't have "unit types" they have vehicle types.

the bit on pg 3 leaves out vehicles.

It's not just terrain, its a fortification taking up a FOC slot. It has advanced rules to cover this model.

I can find more quotes calling fortifications "models" than you can find quotes for vehicles.

that terrain is a model and from there we can also use pg 3 to call it a unit. type: transport or type: fortification. take your pick. Because we also see on pg 3, since we're quoting fluff, The models that make up your 40k army MUST be organized into units. Fortifications are models in your army.

As a unit in your army, it would consider your opponent to be fielding enemy units, while you're units would be friendlyish to it.

I don't think this line of thinking breaks the game in any other regards (that I'm aware of) and it would allow for it to work as intended. Because if it doesn't work in the construct of the rules as we interpret them, then maybe we should rethink how we interpret certain rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:
that bit on pg 77 is fluff, not a rule. And you'll also note that vehicles don't have "unit types" they have vehicle types.

"Most vehicles fight as individual units" is not fluff. it defines the norm for vehicles...

That quote also has information telling us that if a vehicle is not an individual unit, then those vehicles operate together in what are known as squadrons.

It's not just terrain, its a fortification taking up a FOC slot. It has advanced rules to cover this model.

I can find more quotes calling fortifications "models" than you can find quotes for vehicles.

that terrain is a model and from there we can also use pg 3 to call it a unit. type: transport or type: fortification. take your pick. Because we also see on pg 3, since we're quoting fluff, The models that make up your 40k army MUST be organized into units. Fortifications are models in your army.

No, you really can't call it a unit, at least you can not find any rules backing for it to be a unit. It is terrain.

As a unit in your army, it would consider your opponent to be fielding enemy units, while you're units would be friendlyish to it.

I don't think this line of thinking breaks the game in any other regards (that I'm aware of) and it would allow for it to work as intended. Because if it doesn't work in the construct of the rules as we interpret them, then maybe we should rethink how we interpret certain rules.

Again it is not a unit, it is a fortification which is terrain.

Terrain is not a unit. it is not even a model as far as the 40k Rules go. (Though it is a physical model in the real world sense that there is a miniature version of a building on the table, but this has nothing to do with what the rules of 40k define as a model).

 DeathReaper wrote:


I don't think this line of thinking breaks the game in any other regards (that I'm aware of) and it would allow for it to work as intended. Because if it doesn't work in the construct of the rules as we interpret them, then maybe we should rethink how we interpret certain rules.
Again it is not a unit, it is a fortification which is terrain.

I get that part, but that line of thinking leads to these things not working at all.

Would you agree that if we called it a unit, it would solve most of the issues with it?

Even if it's not a model, nor a unit: it counts as a unit when it's shot & assaulted, or if your opponent does some movement phase attacks on it. it's going to need to count as a unit when it shoots as well to make all the shooting rules work. So for 4/6 the game it "counts as" a unit. The other 2/6 it can't move or do anything if it's a unit or not (your move & assault phase).

from there I think it's easier just to say "yes, it's a unit" so if we reverse the emphasis on g 3: Yes each model will have a unit type, so as the model is a unit(or at least counts as one) we can assume it has a type even if we don't know what type it is yet.

Or can you think of a easier way to say "of course these things work the way most people would assume they do?"

Calling a fortification (which is terrain) a unit is a leap that also creates several additional issues.

Terrain cannot be targeted by psychic powers but units can. Where do you draw the line for targeting fortifications as friendly/enemy for the purposes of maledictions, blessings, and witchfire since the BRB fortifications are expressly neutral and usable by both players.

Making terrain a unit would also yield first blood and cause issues with enemy models which are allowed to embark fortifications that the opponent purchased.

To me, that's too many leaps in unsupported RAW or RAI.

I'd leave it with the house rule that vengeance weapon batteries auto-fire at the closest appropriate units purchased by the opposing player.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Calling a fortification (which is terrain) a unit is a leap that also creates several additional issues.

Terrain cannot be targeted by psychic powers but units can. Where do you draw the line for targeting fortifications as friendly/enemy for the purposes of maledictions, blessings, and witchfire since the BRB fortifications are expressly neutral and usable by both players.

Making terrain a unit would also yield first blood and cause issues with enemy models which are allowed to embark fortifications that the opponent purchased.

To me, that's too many leaps in unsupported RAW or RAI.

I'd leave it with the house rule that vengeance weapon batteries auto-fire at the closest appropriate units purchased by the opposing player.

Vehicles can have psychic powers cast on them, as buildings count as vehicles, they could also have psychic powers used on them. you are given permission in the rules for both players to use the building, but that doesn't necessarily mean the building is neutral. I'm pretty sure RAW all psychic powers already work against buildings, unless you can think of some specific issues.

They won't give out first blood, Jinxdragon on the first page made a really good point about that (fixed). They're never removed from play nor removed as a casualty was the gist of it. And the rules for deploying prevent embarking your opponent from deploying into your buildings at the start of the game. pg 121. Plus as it states "friendly units" can deploy into one, from there we can see, fortifications are already a friendly "unit?" in your army. If it was neutral, then how does it have friendly units?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Vehicles can have psychic powers cast on them, as buildings count as vehicles, they could also have psychic powers used on them.

This is incorrect, There is no allowance for Maledictions or Blessings to effect the Terrain.

you are given permission in the rules for both players to use the building, but that doesn't necessarily mean the building is neutral. I'm pretty sure RAW all psychic powers already work against buildings, unless you can think of some specific issues.

Psychic powers only work if they are a witchfire power, as you have an allowance to shoot or assault the building if it is occupied. There is no allowance for Maledictions or Blessings to effect the Terrain.

They won't give out first blood, Jinxdragon on the first page made a really good point about that (fixed). They're never removed from play nor removed as a casualty was the gist of it. And the rules for deploying prevent embarking your opponent from deploying into your buildings at the start of the game. pg 121. Plus as it states "friendly units" can deploy into one, from there we can see, fortifications are already a friendly "unit?" in your army. If it was neutral, then how does it have friendly units?

It doesn't have friendly units. The work around being it was purchased for your Force Org so anything from the opponents force org would be considered enemy units when the terrain is shooting.

To everyone saying vehicles aren't units, I think you'll find in the codices it will say (and i checked so don't try and correct me):
(This is from IG codex p.99 under Chimera Armoured Transport)
Unit Type:
oVehicle (Tank)

but it's not just a piece of terrain though, it also counts as a vehicle.

SO lets start thinking of it as more the vehicle, than a building. anything you can do to a vehicle you can also do to a building. Maledictions and blessings can affect vehicles right?

And yes, pg 121, units in your army are considered friendly to the fortification you brought, that's what allows them to deploy into it. We also see units are free to move into or out of any fortification, friendly or enemy,

even without calling it a unit (even though it acts like one and is treated like one, for most of the game) that part on pg 121 should be enough to say: Yes it works, and it's going to shoot you, not my guys. Because it clearly sets up ownership towards the ones who brought it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
but it's not just a piece of terrain though, it also counts as a vehicle.

Page and para please?

It only counts as a vehicle in the instances that the rules say that it does.

Like counting as a vehicle for the purposes of Embarking and Disembarking.

It is shot like a vehicle and it is attacked in CC like a vehicle.

But that is it.

So you can not cast Blessings or Maledictions on terrain as there is no allowance to cast Blessings or Maledictions on terrain.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
but it's not just a piece of terrain though, it also counts as a vehicle.

Page and para please?

pg 92, it's been posted a few times already. start at the beginning of the thread and go read the building rules.

I read the whole thread before I posted, and just read p.92 twice again. Nothing saying they are vehicles.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I read the whole thread before I posted, and just read p.92 twice again. Nothing saying they are vehicles.

100% this. Nothing on Page 92 states that terrain is a unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I read the whole thread before I posted, and just read p.92 twice again. Nothing saying they are vehicles.

100% this. Nothing on Page 92 states that terrain is a unit.

Finally someone talking sense

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I read the whole thread before I posted, and just read p.92 twice again. Nothing saying they are vehicles.

100% this. Nothing on Page 92 states that terrain is a unit.

So that part where buildings use aspects of the transport VEHICLE rules isn't there?

Or the main difference between buildings and actual VEHICLES isn't there either?

the only differences stated are buildings don't move & either side can enter. Other than that it is treated in all ways like a transport vehicle.

Can a psycher target the transport he's in? Yep.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I read the whole thread before I posted, and just read p.92 twice again. Nothing saying they are vehicles.

100% this. Nothing on Page 92 states that terrain is a unit.

So that part where buildings use aspects of the transport VEHICLE rules isn't there?

Or the main difference between buildings and actual VEHICLES isn't there either?

the only differences stated are buildings don't move & either side can enter. Other than that it is treated in all ways like a transport vehicle.

Can a psycher target the transport he's in? Yep.

I think you bolded the wrong word(s).
"Buildings use aspects of rules attributed to X" != "Buildings are X"
ASPECTS is the word that should be bolded.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I read the whole thread before I posted, and just read p.92 twice again. Nothing saying they are vehicles.

100% this. Nothing on Page 92 states that terrain is a unit.

So that part where buildings use aspects of the transport VEHICLE rules isn't there?

Buildings use aspects of the transport vehicle rules, then it defines which one it uses.

Being a unit is not an aspect of the transport vehicle rules that buildings use, because it does not say that they are a unit, therefore they are not a unit. (Remember it is a Permissive Rule Set)

Or the main difference between buildings and actual VEHICLES isn't there either?

The main difference is just that, there are other differences as well, but the main one is listed.

They give allowances to embark/disembark, and there are allowances to shoot at an occupied building, as well as attack it in CC.

If it were a unit you could attack it when empty, but there is no allowance to attack an unoccupied building so you can not do it because it is terrain and not a unit.

Remember there are many differences as well that are not explicitly listed, like the way a unit can use grenades on the occupants of a building if they assault the building. This differs from the normal vehicle rules because you can not grenade a unit that is inside of a transport unit. This is not the main difference just one of the many little differences.

the only differences stated are buildings don't move & either side can enter. Other than that it is treated in all ways like a transport vehicle.

Can a psycher target the transport he's in? Yep.

Can I get a citation for the underlined text, I can't seem to find those words in the building rules...

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
I read the whole thread before I posted, and just read p.92 twice again. Nothing saying they are vehicles.

100% this. Nothing on Page 92 states that terrain is a unit.

So that part where buildings use aspects of the transport VEHICLE rules isn't there?

Buildings use aspects of the transport vehicle rules, then it defines which one it uses.

Being a unit is not an aspect of the transport vehicle rules that buildings use, because it does not say that they are a unit, therefore they are not a unit. (Remember it is a Permissive Rule Set)

Or the main difference between buildings and actual VEHICLES isn't there either?

The main difference is just that, there are other differences as well, but the main one is listed.

They give allowances to embark/disembark, and there are allowances to shoot at an occupied building, as well as attack it in CC.

If it were a unit you could attack it when empty, but there is no allowance to attack an unoccupied building so you can not do it because it is terrain and not a unit.

Remember there are many differences as well that are not explicitly listed, like the way a unit can use grenades on the occupants of a building if they assault the building. This differs from the normal vehicle rules because you can not grenade a unit that is inside of a transport unit. This is not the main difference just one of the many little differences.

the only differences stated are buildings don't move & either side can enter. Other than that it is treated in all ways like a transport vehicle.

Can a psycher target the transport he's in? Yep.

Can I get a citation for the underlined text, I can't seem to find those words in the building rules...

It is a unit, that's why they added more advanced rules for these models to deny the permission that was given in the general rules.
It is more than just a piece of terrain, It's a building, and it's a friendly fortification, and if it's not a unit, then you can't shoot them or assault them anyways. The target of shooting attacks are units, (pg 13 which models can fire) and you only assault units (pg 20 declare charge)
So I think my argument make the most sense on how to handle these things.
Thanks for your input and help with this.

Are we still arguing about buildings as units?
How about page109, under "fortifications":
"Unlike units, fortifications are not found in codexes [...]"

Note it dont say "unlike other units", it specificly say its not a unit.
'
They still follow rules for vehicles, for game play mechanics though.