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.

Interesting question here, and it can come up with a gun emplacement or a bastion.

So if a bastion (or gun emplacement) is charged, and there is a friendly tau unit within 6" of that bastion, do they get to fire overwatch?

Basically the rules dispute I'm having is whether or not they count the bastion as a "friendly unit"

Here's the quote on supporting fire (very obscure IMO)

"When an enemy unit declares a charge, all friendly models with this special rule in units within 6" of the charging unit's target can choose to fire Overwatch as if they were also targets of the charge. Remember that a unit can still only fire Overwatch once each phase."


Or the actual question is: Does a Bastion count tau as "friendly models"?


Dumbfounded by this

Fortifications are terrain and not models (as defined by the BRB). They just have special rules allowing them to be attacked.

 Happyjew wrote:
Fortifications are terrain and not models (as defined by the BRB). They just have special rules allowing them to be attacked.

It actually doesn't specify that the target being charged has to be a model or a "unit"

.Yes they count as friendly models. see pg 3 and pg 121.

If you can supporting fire for transport vehicles, then you can do so for fortifications as well.

thisisnotpancho wrote:
... all friendly models with this special rule in units within 6" of the charging unit's target can ...

Fortifications are not units. So they are not a unit that is within 6" of the target.

 insaniak wrote:

thisisnotpancho wrote:
... all friendly models with this special rule in units within 6" of the charging unit's target can ...

Fortifications are not units. So they are not a unit that is within 6" of the target.

The rule only mentions "unit" when referring to the attacker and the models within the unit with the supporting fire rule. It simply refers to the attacked object as "the target".

Yeah, I had read the question as the other way around... someone wanting to fire with the Bastion when a tau unit was charged. Which wouldn't work for all sorts of reasons.


So yes, it seems that the Bastion being charged would probably allow for nearby Supporting Tau models to fire.

Bastions are terrain, they are neither friendly or enemy.

sirlynchmob wrote:
.Yes they count as friendly models. see pg 3 and pg 121.

If you can supporting fire for transport vehicles, then you can do so for fortifications as well.

This is just incorrect. Buildings are not transport vehicles. They are not models or units either.

As to the OP, yes you can supporting fire, because it only says "target".

Tactical_Genius wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
.Yes they count as friendly models. see pg 3 and pg 121.

If you can supporting fire for transport vehicles, then you can do so for fortifications as well.

This is just incorrect. Buildings are not transport vehicles. They are not models or units either.

As to the OP, yes you can supporting fire, because it only says "target".

pg 2 first paragraph clearly defines buildings as models.

If you want to make that "unit type" argument, then you should also agree that vehicles are not models as they don't have a unit type.

If you claim "unit type" the you are limiting "model" to just mean the models that have unit types found on pg 44.

so at least be consistent, if vehicles are "models" then so are buildings.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
.Yes they count as friendly models. see pg 3 and pg 121.

If you can supporting fire for transport vehicles, then you can do so for fortifications as well.

This is just incorrect. Buildings are not transport vehicles. They are not models or units either.

As to the OP, yes you can supporting fire, because it only says "target".

pg 2 first paragraph clearly defines buildings as models.

If you want to make that "unit type" argument, then you should also agree that vehicles are not models as they don't have a unit type.

If you claim "unit type" the you are limiting "model" to just mean the models that have unit types found on pg 44.

so at least be consistent, if vehicles are "models" then so are buildings.

Actually vehicles DO have a unit type. I'm looking at my guard codex right now, and under the chimera it says
Unit Type:
•Vehicle (Tank)

Tactical_Genius wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
.Yes they count as friendly models. see pg 3 and pg 121.

If you can supporting fire for transport vehicles, then you can do so for fortifications as well.

This is just incorrect. Buildings are not transport vehicles. They are not models or units either.

As to the OP, yes you can supporting fire, because it only says "target".

pg 2 first paragraph clearly defines buildings as models.

If you want to make that "unit type" argument, then you should also agree that vehicles are not models as they don't have a unit type.

If you claim "unit type" the you are limiting "model" to just mean the models that have unit types found on pg 44.

so at least be consistent, if vehicles are "models" then so are buildings.

Actually vehicles DO have a unit type. I'm looking at my guard codex right now, and under the chimera it says
Unit Type:
•Vehicle (Tank)

old codex is old. in the BRB you have unit types and you have vehicle types. Unit types are listed on pg 44 and not a single vehicle type is listed there.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Actually vehicles DO have a unit type. I'm looking at my guard codex right now, and under the chimera it says
Unit Type:
•Vehicle (Tank)

old codex is old. in the BRB you have unit types and you have vehicle types. Unit types are listed on pg 44 and not a single vehicle type is listed there.

Looking at my new 6th ed Codex: Chaos Space Marines it has for a Rhino:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Tank, Transport).
Vehicle is indeed a Unit Type, and IS mentioned on p44 "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)"

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Actually vehicles DO have a unit type. I'm looking at my guard codex right now, and under the chimera it says
Unit Type:
•Vehicle (Tank)

old codex is old. in the BRB you have unit types and you have vehicle types. Unit types are listed on pg 44 and not a single vehicle type is listed there.

Looking at my new 6th ed Codex: Chaos Space Marines it has for a Rhino:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Tank, Transport).
Vehicle is indeed a Unit Type, and IS mentioned on p44 "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)"

and pg 2 still starts with "the citadel miniatures used to play the game of warhammer 40,000 are referred to as models in the rules that follows."
pg 7 says basic rules apply to all the models in the game
And when we look at any building fortification we see: access & fire points as per model

And if you want to insist they are not models, then you can never shoot buildings as Out of Sight will empty the wound pool as you will never have a visible model in the target unit.
A building is a model and I don't see why people insist otherwise.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Actually vehicles DO have a unit type. I'm looking at my guard codex right now, and under the chimera it says
Unit Type:
•Vehicle (Tank)

old codex is old. in the BRB you have unit types and you have vehicle types. Unit types are listed on pg 44 and not a single vehicle type is listed there.

Looking at my new 6th ed Codex: Chaos Space Marines it has for a Rhino:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Tank, Transport).
Vehicle is indeed a Unit Type, and IS mentioned on p44 "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)"

and pg 2 still starts with "the citadel miniatures used to play the game of warhammer 40,000 are referred to as models in the rules that follows."
pg 7 says basic rules apply to all the models in the game
And when we look at any building fortification we see: access & fire points as per model

And if you want to insist they are not models, then you can never shoot buildings as Out of Sight will empty the wound pool as you will never have a visible model in the target unit.
A building is a model and I don't see why people insist otherwise.

So a citadel tree is a model in the context of the rules too? Including all what comes with it? What if my trees are selfmade - are they still models in the context of the rules?

You can shoot at buildings even with them not being models. The rules say you may shoot at or charge a building as if it was a vehicle.

Keep tilting at that particular windmill though - you might come up with a valid argument some day.

 Mywik wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Actually vehicles DO have a unit type. I'm looking at my guard codex right now, and under the chimera it says
Unit Type:
•Vehicle (Tank)

old codex is old. in the BRB you have unit types and you have vehicle types. Unit types are listed on pg 44 and not a single vehicle type is listed there.

Looking at my new 6th ed Codex: Chaos Space Marines it has for a Rhino:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Tank, Transport).
Vehicle is indeed a Unit Type, and IS mentioned on p44 "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)"

and pg 2 still starts with "the citadel miniatures used to play the game of warhammer 40,000 are referred to as models in the rules that follows."
pg 7 says basic rules apply to all the models in the game
And when we look at any building fortification we see: access & fire points as per model

And if you want to insist they are not models, then you can never shoot buildings as Out of Sight will empty the wound pool as you will never have a visible model in the target unit.
A building is a model and I don't see why people insist otherwise.

So a citadel tree is a model in the context of the rules too? Including all what comes with it? What if my trees are selfmade - are they still models in the context of the rules?

yep

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

and pg 2 still starts with "the citadel miniatures used to play the game of warhammer 40,000 are referred to as models in the rules that follows."
pg 7 says basic rules apply to all the models in the game
And when we look at any building fortification we see: access & fire points as per model

And if you want to insist they are not models, then you can never shoot buildings as Out of Sight will empty the wound pool as you will never have a visible model in the target unit.
A building is a model and I don't see why people insist otherwise.

So a citadel tree is a model in the context of the rules too? Including all what comes with it? What if my trees are selfmade - are they still models in the context of the rules?

yep

See this is just 100% incorrect...

A tree is not a model as the BRB defines.

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

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

What unit type is a tree or a building, or indeed any terrain?

Until you can show where these things have a characteristics profile and a unit type your argument is invalid.

And the very first line of the rules grants model status to buildings, now where is this permission rescinded?

The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move. GW considers it so identical to a vehicle they had to specify they don't move.
The only way ranged or CC combat works is if a building counts as a model. Either because it is stated to be a model, or when you treat it like a vehicle you also treat it like a model.
So as a building is a model (or treated like one so there is no noticeable difference), and each model will have a unit type, then clearly the building has a unit type as well. one complete profile: Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport). WS: - BS:2 S:- armor:14 I:- A:- HP/NA

feel free to walk through a shooting and CC attack and explain how treating it like a vehicle, but not a model works in any way. Then explain how the new buildings shoot if they aren't also treated as vehicles/models.

In this line right here, that you seem to be ignoring: "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type..." (3)

Buildings can not be models as they do not have a unit type as per P.3...


There are specific exceptions in the rules that allow you to shoot at a building, but that does not make it a model 100% of the time.

so what % then? 99?

it's a vehicle in my movement phase, that's why they had to say it doesn't move, plus it's a vehicle for the sake of embarking and debarkation. during my shooting phase when they shoot, during my assault phase if it has an ongoing combat.

during your movement phase? you can't ram buildings, but if you have any abilities that happen in the movement phase like a deff kopta dropping his big boom, during your shooting and assault phases.

So basically it's a vehicle, thus a model, anytime you interact with it. pg 2 makes it a model, it's rules page says to use it as modeled, and it's a vehicle for the whole turn and thus a model.

It's a model.

But not a unit, since the rules specifically say so.

 insaniak wrote:
But not a unit, since the rules specifically say so.

I haven't used the word unit since the thread I made. And I still think that's a good house rule.

I'll agree, they're not units.

But I reserve the right to change my mind once a codex comes out with fortifications in them, and they put unit type anywhere in association with them. Orks are rumored to be getting a fortification in the codex so let's see what "you know who" calls them

Now that everyone has bent and twisted reality. Can I supporting fire a unit outside the bastion when said bastion gets charged and has a unit embarked inside it? Can the opposite happen. Can a unit embarked in a bastion with firing ports in the proper arc provide supporting fire to another friendly unit within 6 inches?

 Miri wrote:
Now that everyone has bent and twisted reality. Can I supporting fire a unit outside the bastion when said bastion gets charged and has a unit embarked inside it?

So long as it is your own Bastion, and not an enemy one, yes, this appears to be possible.

Can the opposite happen. Can a unit embarked in a bastion with firing ports in the proper arc provide supporting fire to another friendly unit within 6 inches?

Yes, this also appears to be possible.

thisisnotpancho wrote:
Does a Bastion count tau as "friendly models"?

No, as terrain is not friendly or enemy, it is simply terrain.

 Miri wrote:
Can a unit embarked in a bastion with firing ports in the proper arc provide supporting fire to another friendly unit within 6 inches?

Yes this is possible.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's a model.

this is your assumption, and an incorrect one at that.

It is not a model as defined in the 40k rules as all models have a unit type.

Terrain/Bastions do not have a unit type. you still have failed to provide rules to the contrary.

 DeathReaper wrote:

thisisnotpancho wrote:
Does a Bastion count tau as "friendly models"?

No, as terrain is not friendly or enemy, it is simply terrain.

 Miri wrote:
Can a unit embarked in a bastion with firing ports in the proper arc provide supporting fire to another friendly unit within 6 inches?

Yes this is possible.

pg 121 "once the game begins units are free to move into or out of any fortifications, friendly or enemy"

it's more than terrain and it is friendly or enemy.

That quote does not say what you think it does.

It hints at the terrain being friendly/enemy, but it never comes out and says it so I would err on the side of caution and not take the action. it is the ethical and sporting thing to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That quote does not say what you think it does.

It hints at the terrain being friendly/enemy, but it never comes out and says it so I would err on the side of caution and not take the action. it is the ethical and sporting thing to do.

It quite clearly says you can enter friendly fortifications and you can enter enemy fortifications during the game.

It's not hinting at terrain, it's specifically referencing buildings as those are currently the only fortifications that may be entered.

Ergo the buildings you bring are friendly, the buildings your opponent brings are enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus accepting that pg 121 is clearly setting up fortifications to be friendly or enemy, it clears up the vengeance weapons batteries and how they can fire without being occupied. So let's err in the direction that makes the most sense and allow things to work.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ergo the buildings you bring are friendly, the buildings your opponent brings are enemy.

Pretty much this, yes.

They're not friendly units, for wherever that matters, but they are 'friendly', for where that matters.