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:


Considered to be a unit = they are a unit.

sirlynchmob wrote:
We have unit types for pg 44, and that's it. But people are willing to apply vehicle types to equate unit types, is it really any stretch after that to go terrain types is also unit types?

It is a stretch because vehicles are units and have a unit type, buildings do not and are not. You shoot and assault buildings almost the same as units, though they have additional restrictions like needing to be occupied to shoot at them...

so you only disagree with giving the the official unit stamp?

just as if it was a transport = it is a transport?

But do you agree that they are enemy models? As you skipped over that part.

Terrain is not a model or a unit (As 40k defines them) so it can never have an enemy.

Vehicles are units as I have proven in my last post. (Official units even).

Given that buildings often have landraider armor, not allowing these things is "stupid" and "unfair", which by themselves wouldn't count for anything, but combined with the vague rules saying that buildings are shot at like vehicles, I call it a tie breaker.

You have a vague rule pointing generally in one direction and the other direction is frustrating and unfair, hmm, not a hard call.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Terrain is not a model or a unit (As 40k defines them) so it can never have an enemy.

Vehicles are units as I have proven in my last post. (Official units even).

Proved? no. Inferred? sure.
Pg 44 is labeled UNIT TYPES, all caps and bold.
Vehicles have vehicle types. not unit types. so while a tank may be considered a unit, no other single vehicles have permission to do so.

And that terrain is clearly and official labeled friendly to your units.
And the other guys terrain is clearly and officially labeled enemy to your units.
indisputable RAW.

Buildings are models, in the dictionary sense and on pg 7 sense:
Rules apply to models
Buildings have rules,
therefore buildings are models.

And in the sense if they are not models, then no rules apply to buildings, nor can you ever allocate any wounds to them.
The only way the rules work at all if for it to be a model at the minimum. Because any time it matters they are at a minimum considered to be a transport model.
Transports are models right?

I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

So other than the codices (and possibly Apocalypse) where is there a "datasheet" for vehicles? Every vehicle in a codex (argument could be made for BT, but they are old as sin) lists vehicles as having a Unit Type of "Vehicle".

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

And the BRB tells you the rest.

"If your codex doesn't contain unit type information (as will be the case with some of the older volumes), then simply consult Appendix II of this book - you will find a complete at-a-glance bestiary that (amongst other things) lists each model's unit type." (44)

The Shooting with vehicles section P.71 "When a vehicle fires, it uses its own Ballistic Skill characteristic and shoots like any other unit." tells us that, like any other unit, Vehicles have a BS. this may infer that vehicles are nits but the next quote comes out and says it:

"A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (emphasis mine)

Vehicles are units as this quote proves.

Considered to be = the rules consider them units, we should as well.

Vehicles are units as I have proven so you might want to retract your statement:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Proved? no.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I opened up my Eldar codex to page 103. The very first thing I see is

Falcon ...Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Fast, Skimmer, Transport)

So the new codices seem to have vehicles listed as having a unit type of "Vehicles".

I guess that's just the codex overriding the BRB

So other than the codices (and possibly Apocalypse) where is there a "datasheet" for vehicles? Every vehicle in a codex (argument could be made for BT, but they are old as sin) lists vehicles as having a Unit Type of "Vehicle".

that's really not the point. Just using those 2 sentences on pg 3 to say a building is not a model, would also say any non tank vehicle is not a model.

And if a transport is a model using that as precedence, Then a building that is treated like a transport would also be treated like a model. QED.
As it's treated like a transport model for the whole game, It doesn't matter if we just straight up call it a model because it's acting like one anyways.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

And the BRB tells you the rest.

"If your codex doesn't contain unit type information (as will be the case with some of the older volumes), then simply consult Appendix II of this book - you will find a complete at-a-glance bestiary that (amongst other things) lists each model's unit type." (44)

Vehicles are units as I have proven so you might want to retract your statement:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Proved? no.

When we look at the appendix for profiles again we see:

Unit types
Vehicle types

Two separate entries. ie different, not the same.

so I still say: Proved? no. Inferred? Sure.

You clearly are not reading what I post.

page 3 "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

a single model such as a tank is also considered to be a unit

How can you refute that this says that a tank is a unit?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just using those 2 sentences on pg 3 to say a building is not a model, would also say any non tank vehicle is not a model.

This is not true either...

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

Do non tank vehicles have a profile? (Hint Page 3 covers this as well)

"vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Also anything, other than terrain is a unit because "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'."

Models must be organised into 'units' This would include vehicles as vehicles are models.

Now please retract your false statement, as I have proven that vehicles are units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You clearly are not reading what I post.

page 3 "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

a single model such as a tank is also considered to be a unit

How can you refute that this says that a tank is a unit?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just using those 2 sentences on pg 3 to say a building is not a model, would also say any non tank vehicle is not a model.

This is not true either...

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

Do non tank vehicles have a profile? (Hint Page 3 covers this as well)

"vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Also anything, other than terrain is a unit because "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'."

Models must be organised into 'units' This would include vehicles as vehicles are models.

Now please retract your false statement, as I have proven that vehicles are units.

Is it a model, is the main issue here.
Vehicles do not have a unit type to meet your requirement on pg 3 to be a model.
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.
Models represent a huge variety of troops
Each model will have a unit type, and as shown vehicle type is different from unit type.
Vehicles have many different rules and their own characteristics. ie admitting they don't have unit types to be considered models.
It also says some models aren't supplied with a base at all. in these cases you should feel free to mount the model on a base. Do vehicles or buildings come with bases? Did you mount yours onto one?
Models must be organized into units, just because it's a vehicle and considered a unit, does not make it a model.

And if you say yes vehicles are models, then something that counts as a vehicle also counts as a model. Otherwise no rules at all can be used with buildings, especially the part about allocating wounds to models.

You have no RAW that flat out say "vehicles are models" when everything about models says it applies to troops only. And if we can accept that vehicles are also models so all the rules work, then we can also accept the same for buildings that count as vehicles.

How many times do you see a Building as defined by GW that is not part of a Persons army in a Game, instead of Ruins, Forest, Craters, Ect... As defined by GW.

I can only speak for myself in this, but in the majority of my games there are no Buildings unless I or my opponent bring one as our Fortification choice. The vast majority of Terrain is Ruins, Forests, Trenches, Craters.... Not one of those pieces of Terrain can ever be effected by any form of Shooting, Moving, or Assault, which personally I think is silly as a Str D Apoc template over a forest should remove it altogether...

Buildings are by there defined nature, natural having no owner at the start of the game, and no weapons to speak of.

A Building Purchased as a Fortification is Hostel toward the opposing player, as Fortifications are controlled and owned by one player or the other at the start of the game.

This is Break Down of what I have seen so far in this argument.

A Model must have a unit Type, Be a Citadel Model, and have a Statline for the rules in the BRB to apply to it.

If an object does not have these Qualifying features then the rules in the BRB to not apply to it.

An object that is not a model may have special rules for how to interact with it during game play as defined in the BRB.

A Building may not be a Citadel model to be used in game play.

A Fortification must be a Citadel Model to be used in game play.*

All Building have a Statline as defined in the BRB.

Fortifications are use Rules from the Battlefield Terrain List.

So while a Building may be represented by a Cardboard Box, A legal Fortification choice Must be represented by a Citadel Model.*

Interestingly enough as I have state before. "The Citadel Miniatures used to play Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as "Models" in the rules that follow." (Pg 2 BRB.)

*: If the players agree that a scratch built Fortification is fine then there is no issue.
**. ADL, SLP, WMT, WMWE.

This seems to have strayed from the original point, but Armorbane works fine on buildings. The rules for that have been cited already.

In this thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.

But in the "ADL - First Blood & Auto Loss Prevention ?" thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Buildings do not meet the requirements to be considered a model, let alone a unit,...

So which is it?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is it a model, is the main issue here.
Vehicles do not have a unit type to meet your requirement on pg 3 to be a model.
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.
Models represent a huge variety of troops
Each model will have a unit type, and as shown vehicle type is different from unit type.
Vehicles have many different rules and their own characteristics. ie admitting they don't have unit types to be considered models.
It also says some models aren't supplied with a base at all. in these cases you should feel free to mount the model on a base. Do vehicles or buildings come with bases? Did you mount yours onto one?
Models must be organized into units, just because it's a vehicle and considered a unit, does not make it a model.

And if you say yes vehicles are models, then something that counts as a vehicle also counts as a model. Otherwise no rules at all can be used with buildings, especially the part about allocating wounds to models.

You have no RAW that flat out say "vehicles are models" when everything about models says it applies to troops only. And if we can accept that vehicles are also models so all the rules work, then we can also accept the same for buildings that count as vehicles.

Vehicles are a unit, the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM It has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

There is no conflict so it is not a matter of Codex > BRB...

Buildings are not defined as models in the 40k Ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In this thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.

But in the "ADL - First Blood & Auto Loss Prevention ?" thread you said this:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Buildings do not meet the requirements to be considered a model, let alone a unit,...
So which is it?

The first one, buildings are models. the part you clipped was from a different user who made a good point on why buildings are not awarding victory points. Next time I quote him I'll make sure to edit out that part, but do note I gave him credit at the bottom of the second post.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is it a model, is the main issue here.
Vehicles do not have a unit type to meet your requirement on pg 3 to be a model.
As buildings are models (as stated on their data sheets & pg 7 confirms), "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." also says they should be a unit as well.
Models represent a huge variety of troops
Each model will have a unit type, and as shown vehicle type is different from unit type.
Vehicles have many different rules and their own characteristics. ie admitting they don't have unit types to be considered models.
It also says some models aren't supplied with a base at all. in these cases you should feel free to mount the model on a base. Do vehicles or buildings come with bases? Did you mount yours onto one?
Models must be organized into units, just because it's a vehicle and considered a unit, does not make it a model.

And if you say yes vehicles are models, then something that counts as a vehicle also counts as a model. Otherwise no rules at all can be used with buildings, especially the part about allocating wounds to models.

You have no RAW that flat out say "vehicles are models" when everything about models says it applies to troops only. And if we can accept that vehicles are also models so all the rules work, then we can also accept the same for buildings that count as vehicles.

Vehicles are a unit, the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM It has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

There is no conflict so it is not a matter of Codex > BRB...

Buildings are not defined as models in the 40k Ruleset.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Vehicles are units, not models
buildings are defined as models in the 40k ruleset and are specifically called models.
And if you can consider a vehicle to be a model even though it has no "unit type", even as a unit. Then a building is surely a model as the data sheet tells you it is a model and to play it as modeled. And on top of that it counts as a transport throughout the game.

I still don't see what the huge problem is with acknowledging buildings are models as vehicles are models, so both work with the rules. Not calling buildings models seems to create more issues than any you think it solves.

If vehicles are units they have to be models.

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

"To reflect the many differences between creatures of flesh and blood and constructs of adamantium and warpforged metal, vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Vehicles have a profile that lists the value of its characteristics, and they have a unit type.

Vehicles are indisputable models and units.

Buildings do not have a unit type... Buildings are not models in what 40k defines as model.

Buildings are called models in the text because they are referring to the physical representation of the building, not the defined model rules in the 40k Ruleset as they do not fit the description of what 40k defines as a model.

"At the back of this book, and in the codexes for each army, you will find the profiles for warriors and heroes drawn from many different races" (3) Note in the back of the book (the reference pages) buildings are not listed. as they have no profile. They have a terrain datasheet, but that is something different.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Buildings are models, in the dictionary sense and on pg 7 sense:
Rules apply to models
Buildings have rules,
therefore buildings are models

Grass is eaten by cows.
My cat eats grass.
Therefore...



Even better, there are a number of rules in the rulebook that apply to the players (most notably The Most Important Rule).
So rules apply to models.
Players have rules...

How do I determine my unit type?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Vehicles are units, not models
buildings are defined as models in the 40k ruleset and are specifically called models.
And if you can consider a vehicle to be a model even though it has no "unit type", even as a unit. Then a building is surely a model as the data sheet tells you it is a model and to play it as modeled. And on top of that it counts as a transport throughout the game.

I still don't see what the huge problem is with acknowledging buildings are models as vehicles are models, so both work with the rules. Not calling buildings models seems to create more issues than any you think it solves.

If vehicles are units they have to be models.

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

"To reflect the many differences between creatures of flesh and blood and constructs of adamantium and warpforged metal, vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (see page 70)." (3)

Vehicles have a profile that lists the value of its characteristics, and they have a unit type.

Vehicles are indisputable models and units.

Buildings do not have a unit type... Buildings are not models in what 40k defines as model.

Buildings are called models in the text because they are referring to the physical representation of the building, not the defined model rules in the 40k Ruleset as they do not fit the description of what 40k defines as a model.

"At the back of this book, and in the codexes for each army, you will find the profiles for warriors and heroes drawn from many different races" (3) Note in the back of the book (the reference pages) buildings are not listed. as they have no profile. They have a terrain datasheet, but that is something different.

I disagree, vehicles do not have unit types. Unit types are different from vehicle types. I'll grant you Units, but they are not models.

As I've already addressed these, how about we agree to disagree here unless we can think up some new arguments?

But I would really like to know what issues it creates if we just say RAW buildings are models? it really does seem to clear up lots of these issues on the front page I'm seeing.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I disagree, vehicles do not have unit types. Unit types are different from vehicle types. I'll grant you Units, but they are not models.

Incorrect. Vehicles have a unit type the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

Predator's unit type is Vehicle. Vehicle is a unit type...

sirlynchmob wrote:
As I've already addressed these, how about we agree to disagree here unless we can think up some new arguments?

But I would really like to know what issues it creates if we just say RAW buildings are models? it really does seem to clear up lots of these issues on the front page I'm seeing.

You have addressed it incorrectly and with a basic misunderstanding of the rules. Seeing as you have a basic misunderstanding of what the 40K rulebook defines as a model it would be safest to leave this topic alone.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I disagree, vehicles do not have unit types. Unit types are different from vehicle types. I'll grant you Units, but they are not models.

Incorrect. Vehicles have a unit type the Chaos Predator, Page 103 Codex CSM has a unit type that is: Vehicle (Tank)

Predator's unit type is Vehicle. Vehicle is a unit type...

sirlynchmob wrote:
As I've already addressed these, how about we agree to disagree here unless we can think up some new arguments?

But I would really like to know what issues it creates if we just say RAW buildings are models? it really does seem to clear up lots of these issues on the front page I'm seeing.

You have addressed it incorrectly and with a basic misunderstanding of the rules. Seeing as you have a basic misunderstanding of what the 40K rulebook defines as a model it would be safest to leave this topic alone.

Says the guy who doesn't know what a unit type is.
and wrongly associates type of vehicle to mean unit type.
Even unit composition is not unit type.
unit types are on pg 44.
Vehicles do not have unit types. to say otherwise is just wrong.

I get what a model is, it's all over pg 3, models are troops with unit types. to apply that to vehicles freely without any rules support is showing "you have a basic misunderstanding of what the 40K rulebook defines as a model it would be safest to leave this topic alone."

Clearly RAW can only mean like pg 7 says. Models have rules, ergo tanks & buildings are models, all of your arguments to not accept buildings as models prevent tanks from being models as well. And it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to say otherwise.

Unit types are on P. 44 which also specifically mentions that vehicles have their own section. (This is the reasoning for not including vehicles on the Unit types pages, because unit type "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)."

If you are going to make wild accusations about me not knowing what a unit type is, when I have clearly demonstrated knowledge on the subject,

Vehicle is a unit type. to say otherwise is just wrong.

I have shown rules support to apply unit types to vehicles, you have just ignored my rules quotes.

Buildings are not models, vehicles are.

If you do not understand that is okay, just re-read the thread and hopefully it will help you understand the rules.

It doesn't bother you that you have to keep adding in the word 'unit' to vehicles when you don't see them in the rules?

I believe the quote you were looking for is "vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicle section (see pg 70)"

Why did you add in unit?

pg 70 says nothing about vehicles having a unit type, and the appendix in the back again separates unit types from vehicle types.

I can see that you've house ruled vehicle type to equal unit types, but that's not RAW.

I do understand the rules, the rules apply to models (pg 7) basic rules apply to all models in the game, advanced rules apply to specific types of models. So it's either everything is a model, or just troops are models.

The citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k 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 demons.

hey look they put models in quotes.

Each model will have a unit type. Now look on pg 44 and tell me what unit type a vehicle has. If that's what is limiting buildings from being models, then it surely limits vehicles as well.

Is a tank a miniature? is a tank a troop? what unit type does a vehicle have? See I quoted the whole rule without having to change them. You keep point to vehicle types and going see they're unit types. But they are not in any way RAW stated or implied to be the same.

I have whole and unmodified rules, you must be arguing HYWPI.

Miniature: a. A copy or model that represents or reproduces something in a greatly reduced size.

Model: 1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

The bastion is a citadel miniature model,
This box set contains one plastic Citadel Wood. hey look, the woods are citadel miniatures and a models as well.

The only way the rules work as a whole is to say there are troop models, vehicle models, and terrain models. RAW.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It doesn't bother you that you have to keep adding in the word 'unit' to vehicles when you don't see them in the rules?

It is there, maybe you missed it in my previous posts.

Hint right here: "Page 3 of the BRB under Units. "A Unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster is also considered to be a unit in its own right." (emphasis mine) " This explicitly states that a single model such as a tank is also considered to be a unit...

P.S.
By the real world definition of model yes everything you put on the table is a model.

By the rules in 40K the bastion does not have a unit type so it is not a model.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It doesn't bother you that you have to keep adding in the word 'unit' to vehicles when you don't see them in the rules?

It is there, maybe you missed it in my previous posts.

P.S.
By the real world definition of model yes everything you put on the table is a model.

By the rules in 40K the bastion does not have a unit type so it is not a model.

By the rules in 40K a vehicle does not have a unit type so it is not a model. QED, at least be consistent.

Just because a vehicle can be in a unit, does not mean it has a unit type as listed on pg 44.

wow this is awesome, this makes bastions that much powerful! thanks DeathReaper!

 ashikenshin wrote:
wow this is awesome, this makes bastions that much powerful! thanks DeathReaper!

... how? Truly, I'm trying to understand how this changes their power level.

I have the same question....

Sure, the lack of it being a model is an interesting quirk of the rules, but it doesn't seem to be relevant at all when it comes to playing them. Buildings have a whole bunch of additional rules that prevent you from being able to really 'exploit' this quirk. This is making it very difficult for me to see any real benefit for the bastion, though it does create some situations with the vengeance battery. I still fail to how this makes the Bastion more powerful then it already is.

because it's no longer weak against melta and lance since it's not a vehicle?

It acts like a vehicle when you shoot at it, so it is still susceptible to Lance and Melta.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Just because a vehicle can be in a unit, does not mean it has a unit type as listed on pg 44.

It does not need a unit type listed on Page 44, because in the 40k rules they state that "we will now cover a series of unit types, each with their own abilities and special rules. Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)."

This tells you that they would cover the vehicle type here, but "Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70)."

The specifically point out that vehicles are not included here because they are covered later in their own section.

Doesn't work that way, the rules for attacking building contain a line stating you treat them as if they where vehicles for this purpose. This creates a requirement forcing you to add the modifiers designed to effect vehicles. Should you not add the additional modifiers then you have broken this line in the rules as you are not treating buildings as if they where vehicles.