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.

 grendel083 wrote:
Page 105, it's not a enemy unit, but you are given permission to assault/shoot if.

Wrong, and this is a big problem people haven't realised in the rules. P105 says you may attack the gun in combat, but it doesn't say you can assault it. The assault rules say you can assault an enemy unit. However the gun is always neutral, thus you can never actually charge the gun by RAW.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Page 105, it's not a enemy unit, but you are given permission to assault/shoot if.

Wrong, and this is a big problem people haven't realised in the rules. P105 says you may attack the gun in combat, but it doesn't say you can assault it. The assault rules say you can assault an enemy unit. However the gun is always neutral, thus you can never actually charge the gun by RAW.

Even if that is the case, you can still strike it in close combat. One of the benefits of not needing to stay 1" away like enemy units.

is it a model?
yes
Is it a fortification deployed before "the rest of the terrain of the battle" (pg 118, the battlefield)
fortification
is it yours?
no


then is is an enemy model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It then goes into greater detail on how to place fortifications and further proves ownership on pg120 under "Set up fortifications"

 Prophet40k wrote:
is it a model?
yes
Is it a fortification deployed before "the rest of the terrain of the battle" (pg 118, the battlefield)
fortification
is it yours?
no


then is is an enemy model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It then goes into greater detail on how to place fortifications and further proves ownership on pg120 under "Set up fortifications"

That may be your opinion, however its wrong.

Terrain is not a model, and it is neutral. You bought it but dont own it.

Wow. first you argue that terrain can not be owned, when it has been clearly been pointed out that it is indeed owned.

Your . (Pronoun)
1. (a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective): Your jacket is in that closet. I like your idea.

Now Terrain is not a model? Lets look at page 2 of the BRB where it explains to us what a model is.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games off Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. to represent all their diffrences, each model has its own characteristics profile"

Do fortifications have a profile? Oh look why yes they do. are they citadel miniatures? Why yes they are. Am I playing a game of Warhammer 40,000 with them.. Holy cow! I am!

Everything we put on the table is a model by the definition of the word.
mod·el
n.
1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

Fortifications are models. All terrain are models.

Do woods, forests, or ruins have profiles? No. Can I buy woods, forests or ruins as part of an army? No. ok then I agree that I can't own them.
Can I buy fortifications? Yes! Then they are MINE. If you and your opponent would like to make rules stating that it doesnt matter who owns them, but rather who controls them can use them ( as exampled on page 89 bullets F & G ), then by all means go ahead thats between you and your opponent. That is a house ruling as no where in the book does it entitle my opponent to make use of elements in my army.

Unless your opponent is tyranids then they can fire your quad gun (provided your not within 1").

You are paying for the right to place extra terrain(that give a damn good cover save) and to place a extra weapon on the field. It isn't apart of your army it is just conveniently placed where you want it. Many tables have these neutral terrain/fortifications set up randomly, what you are paying for it the ability to place yours and to already have troops manning it.

You don't own that brickwall if your opponent is standing next to it, it is as much his as it is yours.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Well, this is a rather tricky question, however, I think this may help. If you look at the Skyshield landing pad, you will note that even if it is purchased by one army, if the opponent reaches it first, they can dictate what position it is in, by the fact that they are "In control" of the equipment. Now, if two different armies are in base to base contact with it, No change in position is given, as they are contesting it. This seems to set a principle that regardless of who buys it, it can still be used by the opposition, since they have in effect claimed it from you. Now, in regards to the aegis defense line, anyone touching or inside it can claim the 4+ cover save, because they are in the area and have the ability to quickly take cover behind it. Now, in regards of being in base to base, if the enemy has taken your aegis defense line and quad gun, and do not destroy it, then they have every right to fire it, until you can take back the position. Now, if you have 2 units in assualt around the quad gun, as there is no other way to have units from two armies touching the quad gun, then consider the quad gun to be contested and unable to be fired, as the guards manning it would have far more important issues on their hand at the present time. Sound fair?

This is kind of my thinking in starting this thread... It seems the skyshield has set a precedence that was not clearly written into the quad gun... definately liking the awesome referenecs being given...

 Prophet40k wrote:
Wow. first you argue that terrain can not be owned, when it has been clearly been pointed out that it is indeed owned.

Your . (Pronoun)
1. (a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective): Your jacket is in that closet. I like your idea.

Now Terrain is not a model? Lets look at page 2 of the BRB where it explains to us what a model is.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games off Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. to represent all their diffrences, each model has its own characteristics profile"

Do fortifications have a profile? Oh look why yes they do. are they citadel miniatures? Why yes they are. Am I playing a game of Warhammer 40,000 with them.. Holy cow! I am!

Everything we put on the table is a model by the definition of the word.
mod·el
n.
1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

Fortifications are models. All terrain are models.

Do woods, forests, or ruins have profiles? No. Can I buy woods, forests or ruins as part of an army? No. ok then I agree that I can't own them.
Can I buy fortifications? Yes! Then they are MINE. If you and your opponent would like to make rules stating that it doesnt matter who owns them, but rather who controls them can use them ( as exampled on page 89 bullets F & G ), then by all means go ahead thats between you and your opponent. That is a house ruling as no where in the book does it entitle my opponent to make use of elements in my army.

Still not a model.
Still Terrain.
You might pay points for it, but you don't "own" it.

It's funny that infiltrators can infiltrate into an enemy Bastion. Which you say is an enemy model.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Prophet40k wrote:
is it a model?
yes
Is it a fortification deployed before "the rest of the terrain of the battle" (pg 118, the battlefield)
fortification
is it yours?
no


then is is an enemy model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It then goes into greater detail on how to place fortifications and further proves ownership on pg120 under "Set up fortifications"

That may be your opinion, however its wrong.

Terrain is not a model, and it is neutral. You bought it but dont own it.

But the gun emplacement is a model.

I have pointed out numerous places where ownership is stated.

I have defined ownership. As relates to models in my army.
I have defined models. As per the 40k rule book.

RAW - Models fielded as part of an army are owned. Owned models are diffrent from Models used to represent the battlefield. The may refer to the terrain section for how to treat that particular Model, but at no point does it change the fact that it is owned.

I feel your argument is weak. I have proved my point. All you respond with is "you are wrong because I say so". This is a discussion board where you are not discussing but rather stating an opnion that is not supported by anything is the book.

I challenge you to point out where it says a purchased item is "neutral"?

As to infiltrating into an enemy Bastion or building, they say to treat buildings as vehicles. Enemy fortification = enemy vehicle, you could no more inflitrate in my empty building than I could inflitrate in an enemy empty landraider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I read all the time on these forums that the specific rule trumps the general rule.

general rule < specific rule < army specific rule

Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement as part of a purchased fortification.

 Prophet40k wrote:
I have pointed out numerous places where ownership is stated.

I have defined ownership. As relates to models in my army.
I have defined models. As per the 40k rule book.

RAW - Models fielded as part of an army are owned. Owned models are diffrent from Models used to represent the battlefield. The may refer to the terrain section for how to treat that particular Model, but at no point does it change the fact that it is owned.

I feel your argument is weak. I have proved my point. All you respond with is "you are wrong because I say so". This is a discussion board where you are not discussing but rather stating an opnion that is not supported by anything is the book.

I challenge you to point out where it says a purchased item is "neutral"?

As to infiltrating into an enemy Bastion or building, they say to treat buildings as vehicles. Enemy fortification = enemy vehicle, you could no more inflitrate in my empty building than I could inflitrate in an enemy empty landraider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I read all the time on these forums that the specific rule trumps the general rule.

general rule < specific rule < army specific rule

Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement as part of a purchased ADL.

If you feel that way read the infiltrate usr IIRC that states you may infiltrate into an empty building(from memory). Oh look it can't be an enemy model or this wouldn't be allowed. Fortifications are not models, and you don't own terrain.

You continue to use the same statement backed by no fact.

Upon reading the infiltrate rule I will change my view on infiltrating into a building as the wording there make no mention of enemy models only enemy units.

The rule states you can not infiltrate within 12"/18 of enemy UNITS, it makes no mention of MODELS. Is the fortifacation a UNIT? No.. is is a MODEL? Yes.

I have shown where it states that buildings therefore terrain are owned. Please show me where it states that terrain can not be owned.

I have shown you where the definition of model is. Please show me where it gives a better definition

 Prophet40k wrote:
You continue to use the same statement backed by no fact.

Upon reading the infiltrate rule I will change my view on infiltrating into a building as the wording there make no mention of enemy models only enemy units.

The rule states you can not infiltrate within 12"/18 of enemy UNITS, it makes no mention of MODELS. Is the fortifacation a UNIT? No.. is is a MODEL? Yes.

I have shown where it states that buildings therefore terrain are owned. Please show me where it states that terrain can not be owned.

I have shown you where the definition of model is. Please show me where it gives a better definition

So with theory like that you can infiltrate 12" from vehicles w/o passengers. LRBT's, speeders, Empty transports, etc.

Is a ruin a model? No
Is the ADL a model? Still no.
More so is it an enemy model? No and no still.

It doesn't matter if you pay for it. You do not own it.



Oh look Pg 3. Definition of units. What?! Lone models are units. That's outrageous.
Guess that makes Fortifications units/models that I can go within 1" of and embark into. Even if I didn't pay the pts for them.

Oh thank you for finding the definition of unit. I was right in my initial statement that you can not inflitrate in an Enemy fortification.

You are still unconvinced about ownership though.

ok, lets use your logic and see where things take us.
==fortifications are neither models nor are they owned by an enemy.==

I have a unit of killy things that I have moved into within 6" of an occupied fortification.
I wish to shoot the fortification in the shooting phase with my combi-meltaguns. I look to the rules for shooting. On page 12 under shooting it says
"choose a target... To do so you must check range and line of sight to the ENEMY unit you are targeting" rats the fortification is not an enemy .. guess I can't shoot it.
Do not worry though I brought chainfists for my killy unit. Wait till the assault phase baby!
On page 20 it says under the charge sub phase
"Pick one of your units, and declare which ENEMY unit it wishes to charge" OH man...the fortifacation is still not an enemy, I can not charge it either!!!

Perfect example of broken logic.

However If you use the rules as written, and treat purchased fortifacation as an enemy model, you could both shoot and assault it.

I ask you to read page 96 under Fortifacations and Dilapadations. It makes a distinction between items purchased as part of an army and neutral items, and the rules for enemy models differ from neutral models.

 Prophet40k wrote:
Oh thank you for finding the definition of unit. I was right in my initial statement that you can not inflitrate in an Enemy fortification.

You are still unconvinced about ownership though.

ok, lets use your logic and see where things take us.
==fortifications are neither models nor are they owned by an enemy.==

I have a unit of killy things that I have moved into within 6" of a fortification.
I wish to shoot the fortification in the shooting phase with my combi-meltaguns. I look to the rules for shooting. On page 12 under shooting it says
"choose a target... To do so you must check range and line of sight to the ENEMY unit you are targeting" rats the fortification is not an enemy .. guess I can't shoot it.
Do not worry though I brought chainfists for my killy unit. Wait till the assault phase baby!
On page 20 it says under the charge sub phase
"Pick one of your units, and declare which ENEMY unit it wishes to charge" OH man...the fortifacation is still not an enemy, I can not charge it either!!!

Perfect example of broken logic.

However If you use the rules as written, and treat purchased fortifacation as an enemy model, you could both shoot and assault it.



I ask you to read page 96 under Fortifacations and Dilapadations. It makes a distinction between items purchased as part of an army and neutral items, and the rules for enemy models differ from neutral models.

Funny thing about fortifications "buildings" you can't target them if they're not occupied.
Again though, you can infiltrate into them because they're not enemy models/units, as long as they're not occupied.

I have been watching this thread and I do have to ask after seeing this topic and reading into the references made. I have to agree with the previous question by Prophet 40K which asked,

"Where in the rulebook does it define what exactly is an enemy model?"

It doesn't actually define what an enemy model is, and this is problematic which is obviously being shown by this rather ambiguous rule. I can see both sides of this and the logic that goes into it. And I have to say it could pose to cause quite a problem in the tournament seen.

I think before this question is answered an FAQ will need to address purchased fortifications vs neutral fortifications already on the table, as well as the definition of an enemy unit.

It has been a good discussion to read though.

I will agree slightly with Prophet40K on this though in regards to JD, if you are going to state an opinion in a thread like this it makes it sound much more constructive and less argumentative if you provide some level of reference or facts to base your opinions on. I am not trying to take any specific sides in this, but I do believe that type of opinion leads to the name calling and non productive conversations in these posts quite often.

I'm not 100% up on the rules for them since neither myself nor anyoen i play with uses them....

but i woudl have through they woudl work liek an objective. If you are in BTB with it, your unit can use it. If both players are in BTB with it then it is contested (the 2 units are basically busy fighting for control and no-one is free to actually shoot the gun).

That's how i'd play it anyway.

Here we go again with the "they are not enemy models/units again."

Here is the rule on page 96. I will post it here since I believe that you couldn't be bothered to read it.

"In the choosing your army section (page 108), you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops to deploy in and fight from a strong position. You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral' buildings on the battlefield."

After reading that I do not see how anyone can still say a building can not be owned.
Why does it make a distinction between a building in an army and a neutral building?

@ Praxiss, I welcome you to the conversation, I understand your view that control vs ownership is what matters. If the fortifacation was neutral I would totally agree that this is how it should be played. My argument is, how do you control an enemy fortification?

Valid point.


So looking at the rules you quoted, each player can put "their" fortifications n the table. Only their team can make use of them (although I suppose an opposing unit coudl still get a cover save from hising behind them). Say that the chaos players doesn't have the right access codes to use the Eldar quad gun or somesuch.

Alternatively, you could place an ADL/quad/baston/whatever in neutral ground and play it is i said above.

Could be quite a good game actually. Rush in to hold the gun platform and you get the advantage.




Unfortunately i'm not much of a rules lawyer and tend to go with whatever makes the most sense (part of the reason i hang around in the YMDC forum in the first place).

Prophet - so you are saying you can shoot at an empty fortification building then? They are an enemy model, and thus a unit (units are composed of models) and can thus be targetted. Except they cannot be. You can also infiltrate inside an empty one - impossible if they were an enemy model.

@Nosferatu
1. No where did I say you could shoot an empty one. I assume you are refering to the rule on page 93 where it covers attacking buildings. I will change my example in the previous post to clear things up.

2. I agree that it would be impossible to infiltrate within if it was an enemy fortification..

 Prophet40k wrote:
@Nosferatu
1. No where did I say you could shoot an empty one. I assume you are refering to the rule on page 93 where it covers attacking buildings. I will change my example in the previous post to clear things up.

2. I agree that it would be impossible to infiltrate within if it was an enemy fortification..

Good thing there is no such thing as an enemy fortification than.

Interesting note.

Fortress of Redemption, pg 97 3rd paragraph. "Each unit is able to shoot at the other and are able to declare charges against each other, as the occupy adjacent battlements."

According to you this could never happen as the Fortress would be an enemy model/unit."

We have established that there is a diffrence between Fortifications (Owned buildings) and Dilapadions (Neutral buildings).
They even make referance to this in your example.

If it was a Dilapadation. yes your example could come to pass.

If it was a Fortification. No it could not.

So we have to assume that the pictured item is a Dilapadation

 Prophet40k wrote:
If it was purchased as part of an opponents army.

No it couldnt.

If you buy the ADL w/o the gun.

To you thats an enemy model/unit too than?

NOW things are geting interesting!

1. the ADL is not a building it simply offers cover to those behind it.

2. It has no profile, so doesnt fit the requirements to be a unit.

3. It is a model.

To sum up it is an owned model.

 Prophet40k wrote:
the ADL is not a building.

So, it's part of your army isn't it?

So by your standard it's an enemy unit/model/terrain

See edited post above.

 Prophet40k wrote:
NOW things are geting interesting!

I work alot, typing on cellphones are tedious. You get better explanations when I'm at home

So the ADL is an enemy model. You can surround an objective with it and assuming I had no flyers/skimmers etc. You could block it off quite easily.

Oddly enough it's an enemy model, so I guess I can shoot at it. Even charge it than.

(edit) you beat me to the next post.

I do see the potential for abuse this line of thinking leads to.

I can see the future arguments of movement denial this will lead to.

It does not change the fact that it is an owned model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although surrounding an objective with fortifications isnt possible as under placing objectives on pg121.

"No Objective can be placed in, or on, impassable terrain, buildings or fortifications"

 Prophet40k wrote:
(edit) you beat me to the next post.

I do see the potential for abuse this line of thinking leads to.

I can see the future arguments of movement denial this will lead to.

It does not change the fact that it is an owned model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although surrounding an objective with fortifications isnt possible as under placing objectives on pg121.

"No Objective can be placed in, or on, impassable terrain, buildings or fortifications"

It's not in terrain.

It's surrounded by terrain