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.

Of course they are models in the physical sense, I am referring to the in game definitions.

Page 2: "Models represent a variety of troops..." and goes on to describe infantry.

Page 3: "Vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicles section."

All of the sections that describe shooting and combat refer to models, refer to bases, armor saves, and the core characteristics.

The vehicles section refers to vehicles when explaining rules, with a few literal references to physical models for Line of Sight.

This clears up issues like a rhino or dreadnaught and static weaponry, as they are not 'models' in the context of rules referring to what 'models' can do.

Was there a question in all of that?

 snooggums wrote:
Page 2: "Models represent a variety of troops..." and goes on to describe infantry.

Because infantry form the core of the game. That doesn't mean that anything that uses a different set of characteristics isn't a model, just that models normally use those characteristics.

Page 3: "Vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicles section."

Which likewise doesn't mean that they aren't models, just that they have a different characteristic set to other models.

All of the sections that describe shooting and combat refer to models, refer to bases, armor saves, and the core characteristics.

Again, because the core rules are dealing with the most common scenario.

The vehicles section refers to vehicles when explaining rules, with a few literal references to physical models for Line of Sight.

They stick with 'vehicles' rather than the generic 'models' for the sake of clarity.

Reading too much into it, I think. A model is a model.

I guess the question would be, does the following make logical sense or something like that.

Weapons aren't models either, they are defined as something that the models and vehicles are equipped with and have their own stats and abilities as well.

The point is that vehicles are so different than infantry and other units that they have a completely different set of terminology used to define a vehicle as opposed to the infantry.

Infantry terminology uses units, models, and body.

Vehicles use units, squadrons, and hulls.

Both use weapons, upgrades, and special rules.

This is an observation on terminology used in the rulebook, not some weird attempt to make things ridiculous. It is intended to be an example of how some rules might seem odd because they don't explain how vehicles are different because they defined a model differently than vehicles.

 snooggums wrote:
Of course they are models in the physical sense, I am referring to the in game definitions.

Page 2: "Models represent a variety of troops..." and goes on to describe infantry.

Page 3: "Vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicles section."

All of the sections that describe shooting and combat refer to models, refer to bases, armor saves, and the core characteristics.

The vehicles section refers to vehicles when explaining rules, with a few literal references to physical models for Line of Sight.

This clears up issues like a rhino or dreadnaught and static weaponry, as they are not 'models' in the context of rules referring to what 'models' can do.

A Vehicle is a specific type of Model, with unique Characteristics and Rules (page 3)

Check the big chapter header that page 2 and page 3 cover: "Models and Units".

Very close though

If that were the case then all the rules stating things such as "target a non vehicle model" and such would just say target a model, thus the implication many many times throughout the codices and rulebook is that vehicles are models (and common sense too although that unfortunately has no place in YMDC)

Seriously? What is the point of this thread?

One point would be that any model can fire a weapon emplacement if in base contact, so if a vehicle is a model a rhino could drive into b2b and fire a quad gun for example.

spongemonkee wrote:If that were the case then all the rules stating things such as "target a non vehicle model" and such would just say target a model, thus the implication many many times throughout the codices and rulebook is that vehicles are models (and common sense too although that unfortunately has no place in YMDC)

Well, that is the distinction between the defined model (what is a model) and the lay use of the term model to represent the physical object called a model.

For example, a model can charge. A vehicle, which is not defined as a model, cannot charge unless it has rules to do so. A walker is referred to as a vehicle when the special rules allowing it to charge are listed. Vehicles are so different from regular models that the rules treat any rule as meaning infantry unless it specifically says vehicle, where as a monstrous creature can do everything infantry can plus changes. Therefore, any rule that states a model can do something is referring to infantry and the subsets of infantry unless the rule states vehicle, although the term model is used for describing the physical pieces or construction of a piece of plastic or metal.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Seriously? What is the point of this thread?

It is a statement based on an observation of the use of terminology and how those terms are defined in the BRB, to see if there is consensus. It is clear that the distinction is not shared, so that is apparently not the case. Carry on.

No, its adding more kindling to the flames.

Units are formed of one or models:
'A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, tank, war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right'. Pg 3 2nd to last paragraph

Pg.2 first paragraph doesn't really give a definition to what a model is, but the above bit should really be enough.

There is also a subsection called 'Vehicle Characteristics' which is in the section called 'Models and Units'/'Characteristic Profiles' (which only models have). Another clue that vehicles are in fact models and form units.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Seriously? What is the point of this thread?

Well for one, this topic is relevant to the other thread on this forum on whether or not vehicles can fire gun emplacements.

 Shandara wrote:
Units are formed of one or models:
'A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, tank, war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right'. Pg 3 2nd to last paragraph

Thank you, that is a wording that does fall outside of the pattern I thought I had observed. I guess it wasn't as consistent as I thought.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:No, its adding more kindling to the flames.

I posted this in a separate thread to avoid derailing the discussion on whether vehicles can use emplacements.

Yeah, sure lets go with Vehicle not being models for a second.


This means that Vehicles are now immune to the effects of Blasts and Templates(their rules only effect models under the templates).

You auto lose if you only have Vehicles on the table at the end of any given game turn(even if those vehicles are all transports containing infantry)

Vehicles cannot be effected by Conjuration Powers.

Vehicles cannot be targeted specifically(in the case of a squadron) by a focused witchfire power.

Beams cannot effect vehicles at all.

Vehicles now completely ignore all difficult and dangerous terrain(they treat Difficult as dangerous and then cannot be effected by dangerous; since it only effect models).

Vehicles cannot gain the 5+ Cover save for area terrain, nor can they reveal mysterious terrain.

Vehicles cannot take any of the Battle field debris cover saves(which includes hillsides).

I'm done with all of those now I am just going to jump back to the important bit: Vehicles can never be shot at(their own rules allow them to target enemy units but the "models'" Shooting rules require at least 1 "Model" in the target unit to be in LOS, and vehicles are not models; so...).


Or we can stop being foolish and Vehicles are, in fact, Models.

You could always use common sense but I guess that is over rated...

YMDC isn't about common sense. It's about literal interpretations of rules with an unclear definition. Hence RAW translations are what we search for.

 thecapn226 wrote:
YMDC isn't about common sense. It's about literal interpretations of rules with an unclear definition. Hence RAW translations are what we search for.

Nope, see the "tenets of YMDC". A minority of players just like to insist that following the RAW to an absurd degree is what's expected and anyone who deviates is using "house rules".

Feel free to claim that vehicles are not units, but we have every right to claim that is absurd and demand that you back it up.

 Testify wrote:
A minority of players just like to insist that following the RAW to an absurd degree is what's expected and anyone who deviates is using "house rules".

Well if you agree amongst the people you lay with not to follow a certain rule the way it is written, and use your own interpretation it is a house rule. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and nobody here plays strict RAW, as otherwise , hey would quickly find themselves out of people to play with. Even the FAQ portions are, as GW says themselves, not actually RAW but GW house rules.