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.

nevermind i missunderstood. carry on nothing to see here

 ashikenshin wrote:

I saw that

You should take the stance that if a building is not a model, you can not assign any wounds to it.

Sure you can attack like it's a vehicle, but then as you can't see any "models" the wound pool empties.

But I'd agree melta and lance work against buildings, armourbane does not though.

One never did assign 'wounds' to the building itself, it does not have Hull Points or wounds to be applied against, and can not be destroyed even if it did thanks to the line stating it can never be destroyed. Instead it uses a more complicated, and if you ask me stupid, system to resolve the damage against the unit inside the building. This system can also be found on page 93, under the attack building section, which is required to grant permission to attack in the first place as it falls far outside of the standard rules for attacking, vehicles or otherwise. Given that we have rules specifically designed for this occasion, we are required to use all those rules; model or not.

JinxDragon wrote:
One never did assign 'wounds' to the building itself, it does not have Hull Points or wounds to be applied against, and can not be destroyed even if it did thanks to the line stating it can never be destroyed. Instead it uses a more complicated, and if you ask me stupid, system to resolve the damage against the unit inside the building. This system can also be found on page 93, under the attack building section, which is required to grant permission to attack in the first place as it falls far outside of the standard rules for attacking, vehicles or otherwise. Given that we have rules specifically designed for this occasion, we are required to use all those rules; model or not.

Yes, but those rules are in addition to, or instead of the basic rules that precede it. In CC you still have to allocate wounds/hits to the closest model. Then if you allocating a glancing or penetrating hit, the unit inside gets hit as well.

and since were back on CC, ongoing combat in successive turns (pg 76): yes or no for buildings?
I'd say yes, but then I think buildings count as transport models.

If it only counts as a transport when charged, as others have claimed....

Since you are given permission to attack a building like a vehicle then successive turns (pg 76) should apply as well.

Nevermind

sirlynchmob wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

I saw that

You should take the stance that if a building is not a model, you can not assign any wounds to it.

Sure you can attack like it's a vehicle, but then as you can't see any "models" the wound pool empties.

But I'd agree melta and lance work against buildings, armourbane does not though.

Armorbane would work as well.

Fragile wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

I saw that

You should take the stance that if a building is not a model, you can not assign any wounds to it.

Sure you can attack like it's a vehicle, but then as you can't see any "models" the wound pool empties.

But I'd agree melta and lance work against buildings, armourbane does not though.

Armorbane would work as well.

Can you give an example of a non-vehicle model that has an armor value? What are they trying to restrict here?

The only way you can read that is they were trying to exclude buildings. But they did a horrible job of it.

Armorbane has no effect on anything with a Toughness value.

The rules treat buildings as vehicles, therefore there would no way to exclude buildings unless it was specifically stated.

Well the Fleshbane USR states "In either case, this special rule has no effect against vehicles." (35)

This leads me to believe the line "this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." (32) in the Armorbane rules means that it is of no use against anything that is not a vehicle since you do not roll for Armor pen against a model with a Toughness value.

You cannot treat them as vehicles and not treat them as vehicles.

Fragile wrote:
You cannot treat them as vehicles and not treat them as vehicles.

Was that directed at me, because I have no idea what your meaning behind this is.

Last I checked buildings stated they were treated like transport vehicles...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the Fleshbane USR states "In either case, this special rule has no effect against vehicles." (35)

This leads me to believe the line "this special rule has no effect against non-vehicle models." (32) in the Armorbane rules means that it is of no use against anything that is not a vehicle since you do not roll for Armor pen against a model with a Toughness value.

Ok, I can see based on the fleshbane rule for comparison, that armorbane would work against building models

One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

If a building is not a model, and it's not a vehicle, it is the very definition of a non vehicle model.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

No, buildings are not models at all.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings have no unit type so they are not models. They are terrain however.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

If a building is not a model, and it's not a vehicle, it is the very definition of a non vehicle model.

That is the most failed logic I have ever seen.

If a building is not a model, and not a vehicle it is most certainly NOT a non-vehicle model, because it is not a model.

A building is a Terrain Piece, it is a terrain piece that can be targeted by attacks under certain situations(while either occupied or claimed, claimed only if you are using stronghold assault).

The building rules state that you roll to hit and armour penetration as normal in shooting. It then states that close combat attacks automatically hit. This does not mean that you do not roll for armour penetration as normal for close combat attacks(because that would mean the hits do nothing), instead we must read into the rules and figure that the Building is treated as a Vehicle for the first 2/3 of attack resolution(rolling to hit, and then rolling for armour penetration), Melta functions fine because at half range to the building you are in effect rolling to penetrate a vehicle's armour(i.e. you are rolling for armour penetration). Lance works Similarly in that it treats a vehicles AV as 12, and you are treating the building like a vehicle in order to resolve that part of the attack.

Melta bombs are not at all Melta weapons, they do not have the Melta rule. What they do have is Armourbane which just directly effects Armour Penetration rolls made in Close combat(this one is completely clear to work on buildings as you are simply effecting an Armour Penetration roll with no reference to vehicles).

Logic 101 Double negatives cancel each other out.

so a "Not Non vehicle model" is a "vehicle model".

Is a building a vehicle model? no, so therefore it is a not a vehicle model or grammatically a "non vehicle model"

sirlynchmob wrote:
Logic 101 Double negatives cancel each other out.

so a "Not Non vehicle model" is a "vehicle model".

Is a building a vehicle model? no, so therefore it is a not a vehicle model or grammatically a "non vehicle model"

Not necessarily true.
There is no double negative.
A non-vehicle model is a model that is not a vehicle. Since Buildings are not models they cannot be a non-vehicle model.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Logic 101 Double negatives cancel each other out.

so a "Not Non vehicle model" is a "vehicle model".

Is a building a vehicle model? no, so therefore it is a not a vehicle model or grammatically a "non vehicle model"

Not necessarily true.
There is no double negative.
A non-vehicle model is a model that is not a vehicle. Since Buildings are not models they cannot be a non-vehicle model.

A non vehicle model is also anything that is not specifically a vehicle model.

The part they are highlighting is that it must be a Model for us to determine what type of Model it is.
As it is a piece of terrain it can be stated that it is "not a vehicle model," but that is different then a statement that it is a "non-vehicle Model" as that requires it to be a Model in the first place.

JinxDragon wrote:
The part they are highlighting is that it must be a Model for us to determine what type of model it is.
As it is a piece of terrain it can be stated that it is "not a vehicle model," but that is different then a statement that it is a "non-vehicle Model" as that requires it to be a Model in the first place.

In your opinion, sure. Grammatically there is no difference between a "not vehicle model" and a "non-vehicle model" Non is a prefix meaning not.

is the building a vehicle? no, ergo it is a non-vehicle
is the building a model? no, (according to some) ergo it's a non-model

together it equates to a non-vehicle model.

It's a funny exclusion at the end of the rule as all vehicles are models, the only thing that has armor and is also a non vehicle model are buildings. Buildings are the very definition of a non-vehicle model and therefore not affected by armor bane.

But just curious and to help me understand your position better, can buildings shoot using the skyfire rules? If it can use the SR, then it's because it's a model firing a weapon with that rule right?

Buildings are models though, that whole unit type nonsense only applies to infantry.

sirlynchmob wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The part they are highlighting is that it must be a Model for us to determine what type of model it is.
As it is a piece of terrain it can be stated that it is "not a vehicle model," but that is different then a statement that it is a "non-vehicle Model" as that requires it to be a Model in the first place.

In your opinion, sure. Grammatically there is no difference between a "not vehicle model" and a "non-vehicle model" Non is a prefix meaning not.

Actually there is a difference. One is a not "vehicle model" while the other is a "not vehicle" model.

is the building a vehicle? no, ergo it is a non-vehicle
is the building a model? no, (according to some) ergo it's a non-model

together it equates to a non-vehicle model.

No, together it would be a non-vehicle non-model.

It's a funny exclusion at the end of the rule as all vehicles are models, the only thing that has armor and is also a non vehicle model are buildings. Buildings are the very definition of a non-vehicle model and therefore not affected by armor bane.

No the note at the end is a reminder that models taht are not vehicles cannot be affected. Just like Fleshbane says it has no effect on vehicles.

But just curious and to help me understand your position better, can buildings shoot using the skyfire rules? If it can use the SR, then it's because it's a model firing a weapon with that rule right?

What building has the Skyfire special rule?

Buildings are models though, that whole unit type nonsense only applies to infantry.

Buildings are models using the definition of model equating to a physical representation of the thing in question. You could have a forest model or a hill model or even a crater model. The rules definition of model includes having a unit type, which Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Vehicles, etc. have but buildings do not.

 Happyjew wrote:

But just curious and to help me understand your position better, can buildings shoot using the skyfire rules? If it can use the SR, then it's because it's a model firing a weapon with that rule right?

What building has the Skyfire special rule?

Buildings are models though, that whole unit type nonsense only applies to infantry.

Buildings are models using the definition of model equating to a physical representation of the thing in question. You could have a forest model or a hill model or even a crater model. The rules definition of model includes having a unit type, which Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Vehicles, etc. have but buildings do not.

That unit type only applies to infantry though, and is not an exclusion to anything else. because as pg 44 tells us, the basic rules so far pertain to infantry. Not vehicles and not buildings. so trying to use it to exclude buildings also excludes vehicles. All infantry models have a unit type and it only applies to infantry.

And the firestorm redoubt building has a skyfire weapon, which only the building can fire.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Jestar wrote:
One problem I have with accepting that Melta works against buildings is that if using that interpretation of the phrase "normally" it allows melta etc. to work only while shooting. The only thing mentioned for CC is that buildings are hit automatically. So this then would mean that a meltagun can use the melta rule,but a meltabomb stuck to the side of an AV14 building can at best Glance it.

Armourbane works just fine for two reasons.
1. All Armourbane cares about is Armour Penetration rolls.
2. Buildings are not non-vehicle models.

so that means #2: buildings are vehicle models.

No, buildings are not models at all.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (3)

Buildings have no unit type so they are not models. They are terrain however.

Wow this is till going. For the record I did put in a question to the GW FAQ people by Email, back when I first posted this, as we know the FAQ's have yet to be updated.

Anyways: As per consensus.

A building is not a model but is considered terrain because it has no unit type.

You shoot at and CC a building like a Vehicle.

Armourbane states that you do not get the extra dice against non-vehicle models.

The rules in general give no allowance for how to deal damage to terrain.

It seems it can be concluded that a Building/Fortification is not a model, but is terrain with an Armour Value, thus meaning that a building is neither a vehicle model nor a non-vehicle model. A building has no Wounds, no Hull Points, but does have an Armour value, and a BS (in most cases).

If a Building is not a Vehicle Model then by logic it must be a non-vehicle Model, except that a Building is not a non-Vehicle Model because it is terrain. Rules such as Melta/Lance/Armourbane let you effect Vehicle models, and give exceptions regarding non-vehicle Models, but give no rules on what to do regarding terrain.

So if a Building/Fortification is Terrain that you shoot at and CC like a vehicle even though it is not a Vehicle one must take into account that rules which affect a vehicle may not always have an effect on a Terrain piece. Walkers are similar in the regard that they are one unit type and in some circumstances are treated as another unit type.

A walker is a vehicle that is treated like infantry when in CC, and there are pages of rules on how to resolve all things CC with a Walker. A walker is a Model because it has a unit type and a Stat line. A walker is a Vehicle and not an infantry model. One would be thought daft to make a claim that a Walker could not be effected by Armourbane in CC because it was treated like an infantry model. When it is always a Vehicle model that is being treated like a infantry model while in CC.

The same goes for a building, if a Building is not a model but is terrain then rules that effect models have no effect on a building, and only rules that effect terrain effect a building. A building does not change into a vehicle nor does it gain a unit type when shoot at or engaged in CC, it is treated like but its type never changes, it is (as many seem to point out) a piece of terrain. Thus it is neither a Vehicle Model (So things that affect vehicles have no effect) nor is it a Non-Vehicle Model (So things that affect Non-Vehicle Models have no effect).

So Which it is? Model/Non-Vehicle Model/Terrain/Other?

I don't know how much simpler I can get then:
For something to be defined as a Non-vehicle Model, it has to first meet the definition of Model.
Should you want to call it a non-vehicle non-model that would be fair, but notice the second 'non-' in there as it is very important to be an accurate description of what you are trying to describe.

The biggest problem I have with sirlynchmob's interpenetration on 'non-vehicle model' is that it turns everything that does not have Unit Type: Vehicle into Models... the table, the players and even the air itself are all suddenly Models. That creates huge problems when it comes to playing the game as now every Rule will need instructions on how it can Resolve against Terrain, against the players, against the air itself and any thing else that we might decide to interact with during the course of the game. As these do not have needed elements for us to even begin to resolve the Rules against, the whole game enters the 'black hole of Rules' and might as well be tossed into the bin for how playable it is.

The other interpenetration that the Rule Defined Terminology of 'non-vehicle Model' requires a Unit Type to begin with, one that happens to not be 'Vehicle,' causes no such breaks in the Rules and has Page Quoted Rule support to boot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BladeRiker,
Someone vast some dark necromancy on the thread and instead of just letting a mod close it people decided to argue over what is and isn't a model lacking the unit type vehicle.....

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't know how much simpler I can get then:
For something to be defined as a Non-vehicle Model, it has to first meet the definition of Model.
Should you want to call it a non-vehicle non-model that would be fair, but notice the second 'non-' in there as it is very important to be an accurate description of what you are trying to describe.

The biggest problem I have with your interpenetration on 'non-vehicle model' is that it turns everything that is not a defined Unit Type: Vehicle into Models... the table, the players and even the air itself are all suddenly Models. That creates huge problems when it comes to playing the game, Rules as Written or otherwise, as now every Rule will need instructions on how it can Resolve against Terrain and other pieces that are not by default Models. As these pieces do not have needed elements for us to successfully resolve the rules against the whole game enters the 'black hole of Rules' and might as well be tossed into the bin for how playable it is.

The other interpenetration, taking into account that something can be a non-vehicle while still not being a Model, makes no problems with Rule resolution.

It does meet the definition of a model though, you're trying to make it meet the definition of a infantry model, then excluding it from all models because it's not infantry.

there is no huge problem with this, it's not some overwhelming black hole, the building rules say how to resolve things against them, they're not just terrain.

June is coming

RAW Buildings in your army count as friendly units, function as friendly units and they are models.

Can you shoot terrain? no, but you can shoot enemy units.
can you assault terrain? no, but you can assault enemy units.

On what page is Model defined, by the Rules as Written, which allows something lacking a Unit Type to meet said definition of Model?
After all, I don't have a Unit Type so I therefore have to be a non-vehicle Model by your definition....

PS:
We can assault buildings because we have Rules designed specifically for how to go about Assaulting a Building and conditions which grant us permission to evoke them at certain times.
By your definition I would be able to Assault a forest, it is a non-vehicle model and I can assault non-friendly models by Rule as Written, which creates huge amounts of problems as the Assault can not be resolved as the forest has no weapon skill, no wound value or anything else needed to resolve the assault....