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.

what page number can I find the unit types for buildings?

The only reason I can answer in such depths is because I have done a hell of a lot of research on terrain types to answer many questions that I still have about them, trying to get to the inner working of the rules and understand how this mess of a situation came about. The very existence of so many rules is the main reason we can not simply treat them as 'models like normal,' because many said rules would either be redundant or run counter to what we already know of other models in the game. Though they did so poorly to create these rules, and I really want to talk to the editor at some point over a lot of things found in this section of the book and else-wise, the truth still remains that the rules exist for a reason. They took a great deal of time and effort with the only purpose appearing to be the intent to give us permission to do things we would otherwise be denied. The only way we could be denied is if they had intended for buildings and all other terrain to be some sort of pseudo-model at best, something which falls outside of the already established rules up to this point that all other models function by.

Honestly, I am am saddened by the amount of the rules that I have dug through because the more you tug on them, and the more FAQ's you read about them, the less and less they make sense even by Warhammer 40k standards. I would even go as far as to state, as my opinion, that no one in Game Workshop even knows what they intended for the terrain rules with how confusion some of them can get, twice so when coupled with FAQs. I would go on to state that many of these rules where likely tacked on during the play testing stage to answer some of the questions that raised then, with little to no thought about how the whole section could of been written to be easier to understand and more streamlined. Half of the experienced rule lawyers on this site would be able to make better rules in their sleep, hell even though I don't consider myself experienced enough to do such an undertaking I know for sure I could find better rules that would be easier to understand, work just as well and create less questions about the rules.

In closing all I can say is:
What is and isn't a models is completely irrelevant and debates over this are less then helpful to try and understand the rule themselves. The only thing you can do is examine the rules that where clearly designed for units, vehicles and terrain as if they where completely separately from each other because that is how they where written. Try to simply ignore the situations where certain things look like a duck, quack like a duck but has rules best related to elephants. In those situations all you can do is treat them as elephants, even though it makes no sense, instead of trying to create arguments as to why they would be best suited as ducks. Most arguments along those lines simply exist to try and find a way to ignore what is clearly written in favour of some other way to deal with the situation, and even though some of them have very good intentions it still doesn't matter in the end.

You have no choice but to follow these rules, unless you and your opponent have a gentleman agreement to ignore certain rule-sets in favour of house rules that make better sense to you.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
not made up, rationally inferred based on buildings being treated like vehicles.
How about just vehicle characteristic: Armor 14
Type: Transport
there we go profile & type when it's being interacted with and along with it, model.

Because the main difference between a vehicle model and a building model, is buildings don't move. if a vehicle is a model, then so is a building every time you look at it. And it can be interacted with in all 3 phases of both players turns, if you choose to or not.

You still have not answered my questions. All I want to know is what page number I can find the characteristics, profiles and unit types for buildings. If you can tell me the page number, I'm sure I can find the specific location on the page.

I did answer that you've now asked 3 times after I posted it.
pg 116, that page you guys seem to find that page irrelevant because it says "as per model" If it's not a model then how do you know what access and fire points it has?

OK, I'm looking at page 116. I see a characteristics profile for the weapons on a Bastion, and I see Terrain Type. Where is the characteristics profile and Unit Type for buildings in general?

Oh sorry I fell asleep and haven't been monitoring this thread. And I have to say we got wayyyy off track...






So....
Any consensus on whether I can Supporting Fire a Bastion Being Charged?

That's all i care about and then i'll let you guys endlessly bicker about an irrelevant rules dispute

thisisnotpancho wrote:
Oh sorry I fell asleep and haven't been monitoring this thread. And I have to say we got wayyyy off track...

So....
Any consensus on whether I can Supporting Fire a Bastion Being Charged?

That's all i care about and then i'll let you guys endlessly bicker about an irrelevant rules dispute

Since there is a grey area, until an FaQ, I would play it is not being able to take the action because choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.In the interest of good sportsmanship not allowing the supporting fire is the sporting way to play it for now.

Actually the supporting fire thing isn't a grey area, as it doesn't need to be a model or a unit, just the "target" of an assault.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Actually the supporting fire thing isn't a grey area, as it doesn't need to be a model or a unit, just the "target" of an assault.

It is a grey area when charging a bastion, as the bastion may or may not be friendly.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Actually the supporting fire thing isn't a grey area, as it doesn't need to be a model or a unit, just the "target" of an assault.

It is a grey area when charging a bastion, as the bastion may or may not be friendly.

It doesn't need to be friendly.
It needs to be the "charging units target". The Bastion can fit the description.
It's the units providing support fire that need to be friendly units.

All friendly models with this special rule in units within 6" of the charging unit's target

Those providing Supporting Fire must be a friendly unit.
The enemy charging must be a unit.
The Bastion in this case needs only be the target of the charging unit. Doesn't need to be friendly, or a unit.