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.

You can take the warlord trait out of it, and still have the same question.
If I run Ravenguard, do my Fortification gain scout?
Models from this detachment gain scout.
Models with the bulky/very bulky rule do not gain scout.

Ergo, Ravenguard can scout their fortifications.

And scouting is no movement??

Naw wrote:
And scouting is no movement??

Correct. Scouting is Redeploying, not movement.

-Matt

CoreDump,
You are given permission to choose three units, show where in that also includes the ability to select 'I will choose later'
If you want to argue that any choice grants blanket permission to delay to a different point in time, unless the Rule states a specific timing, then I need a paragraph quote from the Rule book which supports this stance.
I could break so many Rules or exploit timing so well if that is the case....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As DeathReaper pointed out,
Terrain Pieces are not Models by the definition within the Rules, they lack certain details which are required before something can be called a Model. Buildings are a little bit in the Gray Area of the Rules thanks to the existence of many Rules informing us that they function like Vehicles, but nothing out-right states that this includes the Vehicle Unit Type. I would of liked if they had made a Unit Type Fortification/Building or just gave them Unit Type Vehicle, it would have been a very easy way to get the same result as the dozens of 'counts as' Rules we have instead. Without clear evidence that they have a Unit Type, any claim that they are Models is already on shaky ground.

That is why the timing the Terrain becomes a 'Unit for all rule Purposes' is quite important, Units consisting of Models and all.

DR keeps forgetting GW calls them 'citadel scenery models. all citadel scenery models have a terrain type.

infantry units have a unit type.
vehicles have a vehicle type.
terrain has terrain types.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. Regardless of what is on pg 2, the rules for buildings specifically and quite clearly label buildings as a unit.

claimed buildings are models & units.

and again: 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 (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.

as you pick 3 non vehicle units to infiltrate you can not use it on buildings.

sirlynchmob wrote:
DR keeps forgetting GW calls them 'citadel scenery models. all citadel scenery models have a terrain type.

infantry units have a unit type.
vehicles have a vehicle type.
terrain has terrain types.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. Regardless of what is on pg 2, the rules for buildings specifically and quite clearly label buildings as a unit.

claimed buildings are models & units.

and again: 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 (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.

as you pick 3 non vehicle units to infiltrate you can not use it on buildings.

It does not matter if GW calls them 'citadel scenery models.

Terrain does not have a unit type...

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
DR keeps forgetting GW calls them 'citadel scenery models. all citadel scenery models have a terrain type.

infantry units have a unit type.
vehicles have a vehicle type.
terrain has terrain types.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. Regardless of what is on pg 2, the rules for buildings specifically and quite clearly label buildings as a unit.

claimed buildings are models & units.

and again: 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 (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise.

as you pick 3 non vehicle units to infiltrate you can not use it on buildings.

It does not matter if GW calls them 'citadel scenery models.

Terrain does not have a unit type...

It does matter, they are models and GW stressed that point many times in the rules.

a vehicle doesn't have a unit type, it has a vehicle type, are those models? if you extend vehicle type to equal unit type, then it's just as logical and RAW that terrain type = unit type.

But it is indisputable that:
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army.

No matter what you think, a claimed building is a unit. those are the rules and RAW.

Vehicle Rules are found in a section of the book called Unit Types, so it is difficult to state they are not Unit Types when they are formatted identical on a Profile and found in the same section as other Unit Types.
Being Claimed making them Units is the important part, agreed there, which is what makes the timing so vital.

JinxDragon wrote:
CoreDump,
You are given permission to choose three units, show where in that also includes the ability to select 'I will choose later'

Please show where in that also includes the ability to select "immediately"?

A rule only cares that you follow what it says. It does not have to give you explicit permission to cover all the possible ways you can follow that rule.

The rules say infantry can move 6". It does also say you could move 6" forward, and say you could move 6" to the left. No where are you give permission to move 3" forward and 3" to the left..... it does not have to. You have permission to move 6", as long as you do that, you are fine. (What about diagonal? Do the rules include the ability to move diagonally?)

You are looking for explicit permission for *how* to follow the rule... and that is folly. The only requirement is to follow the rule, which I am doing.... If you want me to follow an additional restriction, you have to supply that restriction.

Or in the next game, you may have to show where you are given permission to move 3" forward and 3" to the left....

JinxDragon wrote:
Vehicles are found in a section of the book called Unit Types...

they are only mentioned to say they are different and have their own section. are vehicles discussed in depth on pg 62? Nope.

A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. regardless of weather or not you accept it has a type, it is a unit.

the models that make up your army must be organized into units.
models must be in units
a claimed building is a unit
ergo a claimed building is a model

a claimed building is a citadel scenery model and is a unit.

Or are you guys saying buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker? Immune to focused witchfires? but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds; for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model, and in CC you allocate wounds to the closest model. That ought to help your all building army considerably

GW calls it a citadel scenery model, and they keep using the word model in 'do not include any citadel scenery model when awarding victory points. And it is a citadel miniature used to play games of warhammer and refereed to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Even if some deny they are models per RAW, it is abundantly clear they are models based on the many times the rules refer to them as models.

Coredump,
Your examples are way off tangent as I would have to point out multiple other Rules on how Movement, then another and another things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand I am sure, actually work. Should you be trying to pull that sort of argument on an actual table-top, I would spend the next hour explaining the finer points of Movement in the Rules. As it has nothing to do with you providing evidence to show that delaying a choice till a later moment is even intended, let alone Written supported, I would rather go back to that topic. It is the core of the debate, these Rules can't function if you do not delay the choice till after permission to treat the Building as a Unit has been granted. Right now it is clear that we have two simple sides on this debate, one that believes a choice has to be made when it is presented by the Rules and another that believes it can be made later unless the Rule states it must happen within a certain time frame.

Having failed prove Rule as Written support to convince me I will give you a chance to do so through logic by asking a simple question:
Have thought through on the conclusions your argument leads to, the sort of things you would have to defend to try and 'prove' this is even possible?
Mine has no wriggle room concerning the timing, so no 'creative' bending is possible and I have no problem with that.

Sirlynchmob,
You miss my point... Take a look at the very first page in this entire section and look at the name of it, not the top of the page but the whole page dedicated to the name. It is the section which details Unit Types, just like the next section titled in the same way begins to detail Terrain. So it isn't just Rules stating Vehicles are more extensive so are being explained in details elsewhere, which would be indication of a direct link more then evidence against anyway, but the fact those Rules are still found bound within a section telling us all about Unit Types. Character Rules, something also directly linked to Unit Types, can be found in this section of the book as well instead of the whole thing just being a Special Rule and explained elsewhere.

Claimed Buildings side-stepping of the problem is something I like, they simply are Units so they are Units!

sirlynchmob wrote:
It does matter, they are models and GW stressed that point many times in the rules.

Are you sure?

What is the buildings Unit type?

"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."

a vehicle doesn't have a unit type, it has a vehicle type, are those models?

Vehicles have a unit type...

if you extend vehicle type to equal unit type, then it's just as logical and RAW that terrain type = unit type.

I dont have to extend anything Vehicle is a unit type...

But it is indisputable that:
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army.

No matter what you think, a claimed building is a unit. those are the rules and RAW.

So what is the buildings unit type?

If it does not have one it is not a model/Unit.

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump,
Your examples are way off tangent as I would have to point out multiple other Rules on how Movement, then another and another things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand I am sure, actually work. Should you be trying to pull that sort of argument on an actual table-top, I would spend the next hour explaining the finer points of Movement in the Rules. As it has nothing to do with you providing evidence to show that delaying a choice till a later moment is even intended, let alone Written supported, I would rather go back to that topic. It is the core of the debate, these Rules can't function if you do not delay the choice till after permission to treat the Building as a Unit has been granted. Right now it is clear that we have two simple sides on this debate, one that believes a choice has to be made when it is presented by the Rules and another that believes it can be made later unless the Rule states it must happen within a certain time frame.

Having failed prove Rule as Written support to convince me I will give you a chance to do so through logic by asking a simple question:
Have thought through on the conclusions your argument leads to, the sort of things you would have to defend to try and 'prove' this is even possible?
Mine has no wriggle room concerning the timing, so no 'creative' bending is possible and I have no problem with that.

Sirlynchmob,
You miss my point... Take a look at the very first page in this entire section and look at the name of it, not the top of the page but the whole page dedicated to the name. It is the section which details Unit Types, just like the next section titled in the same way begins to detail Terrain. So it isn't just Rules stating Vehicles are more extensive so are being explained in details elsewhere, which would be indication of a direct link more then evidence against anyway, but the fact those Rules are still found bound within a section telling us all about Unit Types. Character Rules, something also directly linked to Unit Types, can be found in this section of the book as well instead of the whole thing just being a Special Rule and explained elsewhere.

Claimed Buildings side-stepping of the problem is something I like, they simply are Units so they are Units!

I get what you're saying, but this trying to exclude buildings from using the word model has always just been plain nonsense. shall we look at all the usages of model on pg 8 & 9

the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models. are buildings citadel miniatures? yep

warhammer uses 9 different characteristics to describe the various attributes of different models.
infantry has 9 characteristics, vehicles & buildings don't, but just vehicles are given a pass by the non model side.
If you don't have 9 characteristics you are not a model right?

in addition to its characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type such as infantry or MC discussed in more depth on pg 62
does a vehicles & buildings have a unit type such as infantry or MC? no, but just vehicles are given a pass by the non model side.

models & base sized, the rules in this book assume that the models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with.
do vehicles & buildings have a base? no, but just vehicles are given a pass by the non model side.

Not being a model creates quite a few problems:
buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker. Immune to focused witchfires. but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds, for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model, and in CC you allocate wounds to the closest model. Can you even shoot at them, do buildings have hulls & turrets? nope. in CC what is the rear armor of a building? And many more.

In vehicles we see they have a vehicle profile, not a characteristics profile which each model should have. And they just have a type, not unit type as pg 62 discusses. but as just having a type is good enough for vehicles to be called models, which they are, but then so are buildings.

All terrain has types.
all of the citadel scenery models have a terrain type. it's right there on pg 108, the specific use of the word model to refer to terrain. selective reading of pg 8 and 9 to try and label buildings as non models is illogical and creates other huge rules problems. Unless you think they should be immune to blast, forcused witchfires and never have wounds allocated to them.

does all terrain have profiles? no, but buildings do. so buildings have a profile and type, and are called models at least twice in the rules. I don't know what book DR is reading but, claimed buildings are units despite his claim otherwise.

and do we not treat buildings as vehicles? yes we surely do. 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 (ie infiltrate), treat the building as a vehicle unless specifically stated otherwise. If nothing else, you say vehicles are models, buildings are treated as vehicles, ergo buildings are treated as models.

the timing of the choice for master of ambush is irrelevant, your warlord and 3 non vehicle units have interceptor. The buildings in your army are units and vehicle units when affected by a special rule. So no master of ambush, but you can scout with them.

So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

 Nem wrote:
So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

Except for the fact that a unit that Infiltrates cannot charge their first turn.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:
So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

Except for the fact that a unit that Infiltrates cannot charge their first turn.

Ah forgot that, didn't they change if further to be -the- first turn also.

 Nem wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:
So this means you could...

Infiltrate a building x inches.
Infiltrate a unit into the building.
Disembark first turn and assault enemy.

Though assuming it's pretty hard to get a building out of LOS it's hard to do. Though without putting something in the building I'd just go and claim it if it was close enough to me. Free fortifications!

Except for the fact that a unit that Infiltrates cannot charge their first turn.

Ah forgot that, didn't they change if further to be -the- first turn also.

It used to be you could not charge the first (player) turn. Meaning if you Infiltrated and went second, you could charge in your Turn 1.. Now you cannot charge in Game Turn 1.

Sirlynchmob,
I understand the desire to turn them into Models, as it can make some of the more common Rules used against Buildings to function a little more smoothly, but a desire to make things easier is not enough to suggest Authors Intent let alone something to over-turn Written Rules. I even have serious doubts as if it was the Authors intention for Terrain to be treated as if they where Models all the time, as I can envision Rule interactions that could be created if Terrain is considered to be a Model by Default. It would be entirely possible to avoid these undesired interactions by refraining from making Terrain into Models by default, and instead rely on a bunch of 'counts as' Rules to grant permission to resolve situation X or situation Y as if the Building was a Model.

Given the amount of 'count's as Vehicle' Rules contained in the Building section, all designed to give us a permission to resolve situations where Buildings are required to be Models....

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob,
I understand the desire to turn them into Models, as it can make some of the more common Rules used against Buildings to function a little more smoothly, but a desire to make things easier is not enough to suggest Authors Intent let alone something to over-turn Written Rules. I even have serious doubts as if it was the Authors intention for Terrain to be treated as if they where Models all the time, as I can envision Rule interactions that could be created if Terrain is considered to be a Model by Default. It would be entirely possible to avoid these undesired interactions by refraining from making Terrain into Models by default, and instead rely on a bunch of 'counts as' Rules to grant permission to resolve situation X or situation Y as if the Building was a Model.

Given the amount of 'count's as Vehicle' Rules contained in the Building section, all designed to give us a permission to resolve situations where Buildings are required to be Models....

It's not a desire of mine to turn them into models, the authors labeled terrain as 'citadel scenery models' and again use 'citadel scenery models' when talking about victory points, and the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models. Also under terrain datasheets 'if a citadel scenery model can be taken as part of an army, then a point value for the model will be listed here. OMG they called fortification a model twice in the same sentence, and used the word model 14 times when talking about terrain datasheets.

It's like they're trying to make a point about something.

Just like claimed buildings can be a unit without meeting all the criteria some put on it, terrain was proclaimed a model and refereed to as models, despite not meeting all the criteria some put on it

Yes they called it a model, but that does not make it a model as per the definition in the 40k Rules.

Considering that the word model has multiple uses within the English language, the simple presence of it in a paragraph is not enough evidence to the Authors intention. For that stance to be correct, it would require us to accept that all casual misuse of the terminology means that any Rule singling out Model or Units can also be applied to the subject matter in question. Given that there are a great deal of things referred to as models, by the general English use of the word, it would take more time then I am willing to invest to document all the broken scenarios that stance leads to. Almost like the Authors never intended for everything that could be referred to as a model to trigger Model related Rules, only things which meet the definition of Model set forth by the Rules themselves.

It also fails to explain why the Authors penned so many 'count's as' Rules, designed to allow Buildings to resolve scenarios that center around models, if they intended for Buildings to already be Models as per the Rules...
Including a Rule which grants Unit status to Claimed Buildings, as if they lacked access to something every Model has....

PS:
It is also why I have gotten into the habit of having a capitalized letter when referring to something like a Model or a Rule, to differentiation between the general use of the word and the books definition of a word.

Except Model is defined in the 40K ruleset, so the real world definition of it is not valid for that purpose.

That's the thing though, there is no rule defined meaning of model beyond 'the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models in the rules that follow'. Nor any hint that they implied or intended to use both meanings of model in the rules. that is a false dichotomy you guys are creating.

look at this sentence:
'if a citadel scenery model can be taken as part of an army, then a point value for the model will be listed here

you took a model as part of your army, It is a model, to deny it model status you need a rule to expressly say it is no longer considered a model.

it is a model, and it is a model in the rules that follows and nothing ever revokes model status, nor even hit that it is RAW to do so.

deployment pg 132:
Models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone, so if buildings are not models they can be placed anywhere on the table? If you say they must be deployed in your deployment zone, then what are you basing it on? And furthermore could you even deploy a non model during your deployment?

scenery upgrades, or set up as a separate model within 6" Even the upgrades are labeled as models.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps everywhere you find model used in the brb it is 'model' no caps.

sirlynchmob wrote:
That's the thing though, there is no rule defined meaning of model beyond 'the citadel miniatures used to play 40k are referred to as models in the rules that follow'.

Yes there is.

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (Models and Units Chapter, Characteristic Profiles section).

"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).

For something to be a model it needs two things, a "profile that lists the values of its characteristics." and "a unit type"

Nor any hint that they implied or intended to use both meanings of model in the rules. that is a false dichotomy you guys are creating.

Not creating anything, they tell you how to identify a model in the 40K ruleset.

look at this sentence:
'if a citadel scenery model can be taken as part of an army, then a point value for the model will be listed here

you took a model as part of your army, It is a model, to deny it model status you need a rule to expressly say it is no longer considered a model.

it is a model, and it is a model in the rules that follows and nothing ever revokes model status, nor even hit that it is RAW to do so.

It is not a model as it does not have a unit type. the RAW tells us that "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type"

deployment pg 132:
Models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone, so if buildings are not models they can be placed anywhere on the table? If you say they must be deployed in your deployment zone, then what are you basing it on? And furthermore could you even deploy a non model during your deployment?

scenery upgrades, or set up as a separate model within 6" Even the upgrades are labeled as models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps everywhere you find model used in the brb it is 'model' no caps.

Again, no unit type, it it not a defined 40K model. However buildings have a special provision to be treated as a model when deploying, so they must be in your deployment zone.

Curious that you would state no defined meaning of Mode beyond The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow... given that the very next sentence informs us that Models represent a variety of troops. The third sentence in that paragraph, as we still are in the same block of text that started with The Citadel miniatures... states that each Model has its own characteristic profile. Given that this information is in one paragraph, clearly defining things a Model must possess, it is very difficult to see you claiming that no such things exist as if you didn't even read past a single sentence. The only logical conclusion the entirety of the text creates is that such definitions do exist, and if something fails to meet that definition then it has to be something else. Should this conclusion be incorrect, all it would take is a Rule quote stating that things without these qualities are also models regardless.

If Citadel Scenery Models are Models instead of being models representing terrain, then anything which applies to Models applies to all terrain from the hole in the ground right through to Buildings as well. While I am not going to hunt down Rules that throw Models around or cause other things to occur, I will point out that the reason the vast majority of Rules don't work is because the lack of a Profile that prevents interaction. Even simple Blast Marker Special Rule now applies to terrain and simply has no method in which to resolve the Hits generated because they can only apply to things with a Profile. Those minor conflicts, which analog thinkers would easily put out of their mind by ignoring them completely, make the definition put in the start of the book even more vital to understanding how Rules simply function. Rules are simply far more structured then the English language ever will be.

It highlights once more the need for 'Count As' clauses, designed to allow even basic Rules to function when resolved against Terrain that should be treated like Models.
By the way, such a clause exists for Fortifications and it forces them to deploy using the Deployment rules that the other models have to use.
That wouldn't have to exist if Buildings, and in this case Fortifications that include non-Building models, where already Models....

PS:
The capital letter thing is something I try and do, the Authors use of duel terminology is bad enough without trying to make it a larger puzzle to understand my rantings.

*edit* directed towards DR but also answers jink.

They tell you how to identify a infantry model, even the vehicle characteristics refer to those rules applying to flesh & blood creatures. Not all models. and like OII tells us, don't worry about it, because it's obviously not important.

Why do you cling to just the unit types and ignore that 40k uses 9 different characteristics to describe models. (second paragraph) vehicles don't have 9, so they must not be models either right?

we see under vehicles 'they do not fight in the same manner of other models' implying they are models just like fortifications use the same rules as other models. implying they are also models.

it's a model and deploys like other models.

What type of shenanigans are you trying to pull by calling them non models? You can't even admit claimed buildings are units as seen here:

me:

But it is indisputable that:
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army.
No matter what you think, a claimed building is a unit. those are the rules and RAW.

DR:

so what is the buildings unit type? If it does not have one it is not a model/Unit.

How many times must they be referred to as models before you can accept them for the models they are? As you are demonstrably wrong about claimed buildings being units, I can safely assume you are equally wrong about the status of model you are trying to impose.

Sirlynchmob,
I have to run out so I will simply state:
Advanced vs Basic

There is a Rule in the Unit Type section which specifically states that the default profile is replaced with the following, in the case of Vehicles, so it is not a good comparison...
Unless you can find something identical for Terrain?

Or even just a Unit Type for terrain.

@jink I wish you would state some examples of models not working. That would do more for me to rethink my position than the parroting of 'unit type.' If it's just a lack of profile, well buildings have a profile, along with some natural scenery, building upgrades, and battlefield debris.

because either being a model or counting as a model should get the exact same results. Unless someone has something dodgy in mind.

The poster whom said that a building is treated as a vehicle for the purpose of special rules is correct. No infiltrating fortifications. Thanks for clarifying. The rest of you guys seam to be making some stupid argument revolving around semantics, please stop.