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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Sunhero wrote:
I think we can mostly agree now that it is allowed but its pretty crazy

No, not at all allowed, because of the reasons I posted earlier.

Maybe address his points and somebody will listen to you.

What about I, did I not address his points more then once?
When DeathReaper and I both state that there is no 'agreement' on any matter then maybe there is some grounds to say there is no agreement....


Claimed Buildings does not apply - Start of Game occurs some point after Reserves. There are even mention of a Rule designed to pull a Unit out of Reserve, triggering before the game begins, within the Basic Rulebook itself. Aerial Support, or whatever it was called, exists to prevent such Rules from functioning on Flyers because they are not designed to be pulled out of Reserves in this fashion. Others simply trigger prior to the Beginning of the Game while targeting a Unit already in Reserves itself, such as Independent Characters when they Joining Units already in Reserves.

While we might not know exactly when the 'start of game' occurs... doesn't look like it happens before Reserves, so no Claimed Buildings.

JinxDragon wrote:
Ascalam,
What about Rules which talk about a period of time after putting a Unit into Reserves but before the Start of Game, such as Aerial Support?


Sunhero,
Fortifications are not Units or Models by default, if you want to play that they are prepare for me to do things like:
Join a Independent Character to a defense line so all wounds are allocated to a 'model' without a Wound Characteristic
Move a physical wall in front of my troops to block line of sight, seeing I have a lot of indirect fire
Demand that you stay 1 inch away from all of my buildings and fortifications, including the ones you are meant to be able to shoot back at me by being in base contact with
and so forth....

All Apples and Oranges.

A Defense line is not a Building.
Buildings count as vehicles for special rules.
Independent Character is a special rule (page 166)
Independent Character says you cannot join vehicles.
Building rules say that they are Immobile.
You cannot move immobile units. You cannot join Vehicles.
You do need to stay 1" away from Claimed Buildings, unless you're assaulting them.

HawaiiMatt,
You have over-looked something important in your counter:
We are talking about Fortifications being Models by default, not simply isolating the discussion to Buildings. If we are to accept the conclusion that all purchased Fortifications are Models / Units by default, in order to grant the Unit status to a Building prior to the Claimed Rule triggering, then a Defense Line segment or Gun Emplacement are also Models / Units by default. Of course, this completely ignore the fact the only Rules which have been quoted on how a Model is defined all point to Fortifications failing to meet the criteria to be considered Models. However, that line of argument as to why Fortifications are not Model's is always simply ignored by the people who want to Deep Strike a Building. So I figured it would be a little easier to point out that every other Rule in the Game breaks completely when applied to non-model entities, such as a Defense Line, so best not try and grant Fortifications Model / Unit status by default or else I will exploit it to break the game past the point of being playable.

Should one want to limit Unit / Model status to just Buildings they would need a Rule stating that Buildings, and only Buildings, are Units.
One such Rule exists, but that Rule grants the Unit status to a Building after Reserves....

Isn't there a rule somewhere about models that are unable to move while in reserve are destroyed? I would think that rule would prevent this kind of nonsense.

buildings in 7th are treated as units
brb p.112 top of right hand column
"A the stat of the game all building that are taken as part of a a players army are 'claimed'."
"A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army."

They are deployed as other units
p.130 bottom left hand column.
"if a fortification is taken as part of an army, then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using e the same deployment rules as the other models."
( it can be put in reserves if the mission allows)

When do you decide if a unit is going to be inside a transport while being held in reserves? Is that before the start of the game? Because if it is, then you can't put the character into the building because it is not a unit in your army until "At the stat of the game".

If the 'start of the game' is before declaring reserves then all is well but I'm pretty sure that isn't until after deployment/reserves.

models that cannot fit on the table and are unable to move are destroyed instead of being put in reserves. It's a result of them not being able to be deployed during deployment and not one of being in reserves, technically you can hold immobile things in reserves.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Sunhero wrote:
I think we can mostly agree now that it is allowed but its pretty crazy

No, not at all allowed, because of the reasons I posted earlier.

Maybe address his points and somebody will listen to you.

I have, in my posts in this very thread


JinxDragon has as well.

I'm going to leave this discussion to others i think.

I will get some popcorn and watch though

Too busy for the next few days to be on enough to be worth it

Deathreaper,
Just wanted you to know it feels strange when you and I both post supporting arguments in the same thread... not bad, just... strange.

One last go to convince the unbelievers.
I am going to go a crazy round about way since the absurdly obvious argument that a building is a model doesn't seam to convince you, and if if you cant accept that i don't think you are listening to reason on this topic.


A unit embarked a building claims it instantly turning it into a unit in the controlling player army p.112
(never mind the fact that is already claimed automatically buy the player who brought it in his list for some you reason you don't like that.)

When a unit is put in deep strike reserves it has to have the deep strike special rule or be embanked upon a unit that does.

Now that act of putting a unit into deep strike reserves must be allowed to a happen simultaneously with putting it with the character that grants deep strike or even a vehicle that grants deep strike, as these thing are declared simultaneously and must be allowed to do so,
or a squad with out it.
eg fire dragoons could not be placed in deep strike reserve using the wwp and the device would not work on any infantry squad that did not already have the deep strike rule .

Sunhero wrote:

A unit embarked a building claims it instantly turning it into a unit in the controlling player army p.112
(never mind the fact that is already claimed automatically buy the player who brought it in his list for some you reason you don't like that.)

How do you embark into a building before the game when it is not on the board? Normally, you deploy the building first and it is a piece of terrain, allowing you to put models in it. Then it is claimed AFTER the game starts and AFTER deployment. It is not a unit before that point.

Sunhero,
Because it is one of my most favorite things to post on this site:
The General Principal of Sequencing makes it illegal to Resolve two Rules simultaneously.

It is not possible to simply state that we are resolving the Rules for Embarking at the same time we are putting something into Reserve. Instead of being allowed to make these choices, we have been presented with a method for determining exactly which Rule goes first in all situation where two Rules are triggering at the very same time. This means we would need specific instructions stating that Rule X can be Resolved simultaneously as we Resolve Rule Y, very detailed instructions on how the two Rules would be interacting while doing so, before we can accept any argument that involves Resolving something simultaneously. Without that, the best we can do is pause the Resolution of a Rule in order to complete a secondary Rule which has specific instructions to trigger at that time... then resolve the second Rule to completion before returning to the original.

This creates a problem in your theory:
Until the Unit has Resolved the Rules related Embarking, nothing has Embarked
Without an Embarked Unit, the Claimed Rule does not trigger
Without the Claimed Rule, the Building does not get Unit status
Without Unit Status the Building can not be placed into Reserves

Even if you could find some sort of 'interrupt' allowing Reserves to trigger half way through Embarking, which you will not cause the two are completely unrelated, it still requires the Rules for Embarking to be completed first....

If what you stated was the case the the wwp doesn't work on vehicles or squads with out the deep strike rule because they need it to placed in deep strike reserve.

so you argument comes down to the fact that the wwp doesn't work at all which is plainly false.

Where in the book does it state we have permission to ignore the Rules if we encounter a situation where they can not be rationally applied?

Let us dissect the actual Web-Way Portal as it was posted previously:
"If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserve.
As part of Trigger for this Rule is ... is in Reserves ... it is impossible for this Rule to be Resolved at any point prior to the Model being placed into Reserve.

The possible timing issue does nothing to change what the Written Rules themselves state, and as we are debating if the Rules allow you permission to do X the existence of the problem is itself evidence to the answer of 'No.' The very best one could hope is an 'Authors Intent' argument, because it is very obvious the Authors intended for this Rule to do something, but those arguments are always going to be bias towards what we desire and not what the Author desires. Take this very topic as an example, who is going to accept the argument that the Authors intended for this one piece of war-gear to allow a Building to be placed into Reserves? The most likely rewrite agreed on by two opponents would be the following:

If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon may Arrive by Deep Strike. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if Arriving by Deep Strike.

So yours saying the wwp doesn't work?

If yes then you have reasoned your self into a corner and their no point discussing it further.

There's a lot of rules in 40K that "don't work".

Indeed Ghas, indeed,
Or do people need to be remind that, in 6th Edition, any Model which did not have physical eyes was unable to Shoot or Assault?

Part of this Forums existence is to discuss the possibility of a Written Rule not functioning because it was so poorly Written it does not fit into the Rules themselves. It is possible that this is one such case, I will review the Rules again to see if the timing created with the Deep Strike Special Rule can be resolved without needing 'House Rules' but it might be required at this point. However, even if it does require us to evoke 'the most important Rule' with our opponents, the Authors Intent argument would still have to be something really good to allow Buildings to enter Reserves. I think most people would agree that the Authors never intended, if they even thought on, a Building being placed into Reserves in order to gain access to a second Rule which would then allow it to Deep Strike onto the field via a Third....

So if you want to take this to an Authors Intent Argument I have the following reply:
It is obvious the Authors Intended for a Model with this piece of War-gear to allow themselves, any Joined Unit and their Transport to Arrive by Deep Strike.
That does not prove that the Authors intended for a Model with this piece of War-gear to pull a Building into Reserves in order to make it into a Deep Striking Transport....

So your using what you persevere as a loop whole that does not allow the wwp to function to argue against deep striking building you can see why that's no a convincing argument right?
just as if you argued that wraith guard could not shoot in 6th would be similarly unconvincing.

regardless its has been an interesting argument and you argued the opposite case well and refined my argument in the process.

unless you have another reason why it's not aloud I am pretty convinced at this stage that is permissible.

However I absolutely agree with you that its silly though i think it would be cool if some one made a cool dark eldar webway tower that protruded into real space.
I would probably never have the balls to try it though unless it becomes generally accepted or I have discussed it with my opponent or TO though.

no, jinx is saying the WWP probably doesnt work RAW, but he believes it to work RAI.


He does not however believe RAI allows you to deep strike a building.


I and many others do not as well.

I do agree that a building counts as an immobile vehicle once the game begins (at the start of turn 1), but until then, it is not a model and thus cannot be held in reserve.

Dangit well there goes all my hopes and dreams. No wwp the micro stronghold or vortex missles. :( Good thing I did not go out and buy all those models. While I was hoping I could knock the dust off all those buildings dangit. I guess GW does not get my money this time on those Dark Eldar models I was going to have to buy because they force me to.

Sunhero,
It is the Basic Rules themselves which have made it impossible to put a Building into Reserves, they have nothing to do with the Web-Way Portal itself....
Put it this way: If a Tau player wanted to put a Fortress of Redemption into Reserves, what Rule would they evoke in order to do so?

There may very well be a curious self-contained Timing Paradox within the Web-Way Portal Rule, I will review that later as I mentioned, but let us assume that the paradox does exist. The existence of any paradox only proves that the Rule does not function as currently Written, it does not provide any evidence as to how the Rule is designed to function. Therefore, the existence of the paradox can only be used to support the obvious argument of 'Rule is broken, try again later' responses. All other arguments fall under the banner of 'Authors intent,' and all one can try to do at that time is convince others that their view into the mind of the Author is more likely to be.

If you wish to have an Authors Intent argument please answer the following question questions for me:
Why would 'The Authors want us to Deep Strike Buildings' be more valid then 'The Authors intent was to allow a Unit already in Reserves to now Arrive by Deep Strike?'

I don't think there is a RAW problem with a normal wwp drop or a building drop but i agree with you on RAI.

That is probably related to this question:
Do you consider Fortifications to already be Models?

Yep has a profile so is a model like first page of the book. (just checked top of page 9)


But if you disagre with that
looked it up page 17 says if its before the game roll of for it or the player whose turn it is decides. so you embark your unit in building before turning it into a unit before putting it into deep strike reserve

And in the paragraph above that it says "before the game begins" are things that happen before the deployment phase suggesting that the deployment phase is the beginning of the game in which case that would end the argument.
otherwise you would have to roll of for it.

pretty cool skipped that part of the book when i first got 7th because i assumed it would be the same as 6th.

Sunhero wrote:
Yep has a profile so is a model like first page of the book. (just checked top of page 9)

Not from what I can see. From 'Models & Units':

To reflect all the differences, each model has it's own characteristic profile.

A few pages over we see an example of a characteristic profile for non-vehicle models. In the 'Vehicles' section of the rules we see an example of a vehicle's characteristic profile. Battlefield terrain does not have a characteristic profile, instead it has a 'datasheet'

Sunhero wrote:
So yours saying the wwp doesn't work?

If yes then you have reasoned your self into a corner and their no point discussing it further.

It works fine, just not with buildings.

Sunhero,
Models also require a Unit Type, so what is the Unit Type of a Fortification?

Then there is this big issue with the concept that Fortifications are Models by default: Basic Rules, as in every Rule found in the Movement - Shooting - Assault Phases, applies to all Models. For a Building it is not much of a big issue, they have pages of other Rules designed to mimic these Basic Rules already, but for other Fortifications it does make a huge difference. If we are to accept that Fortification are Models by default, then we lack the ability to restrict access to any Model-specific Rule unless it states 'not-for-fortifications within it.' This would mean a great number of Rules which only function if they are applied to a Model with the correct Unit Type would have to apply to every Fortification.

Example:
Buildings have a Rule preventing them from moving... Defense Lines do not.


As for the rest of your post:
The Embarking Process itself requires us to complete a few more actions then simply stating that the Unit has Embarked. One such requirement would be to be within 2 inches of an access point, something that can only be verified if the Embarking Unit and Fortification are already 'in play.' The act of Deploy the Building onto the Table, in order to allow access to the access point itself, would render it impossible to place the Building into Reserves afterwards. The act of placing it into Reserves requires it to have access to a Unit-Specific Rule prior to when the Rules state access has been granted.

Therefore a Unit can not legally obey the Rules for Embarked before the Building is placed into Reserves.

Its interesting if you check the terrain data sheet section it calls buildings and non-building fortification models multiple times i think this would allow you to not deploy things like defense line by putting them into reserve where they would automatically be destroyed because they can't deploy.

also do you not believe that paragraph suggest that the game starts in the deployment phase

does a claimed building a have a unit type and do you think it is a model.

i think you would agree that thee wwp works when embarked on a vehicle with out resorting to rai.
the timing would follow the same process

first combine and embark unit then put it in reserve.

An an assault cannon has 'assault' in it's name, but it doesn't make it an assault weapon. They're 'models' in that they're "small copies of something", but by a rules definition, they're not 'models'.

If i show in the book where call them models and you say thats just a name what else do you want.

@jinx dragon Do you not think the 2nd paragraph from the bottom on page 17 suggests that the deployment phase is the start of the game.
( rereading that paragraph it says events that happen "before the game begins" happen before the deployment phase. Doesn't implicitly suggest the deployment phase is the beginning of the game)