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.

JinxDragon wrote:
On what page is Model defined, by the Rules as Written, which allows a player 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....

they don't, pg 2 and 3 describe infantry models. as pg 44 tells us.

so we use the dictionary definition of what a model is.

Are you a vehicle model? but if you want to call yourself a vehicle model, I will respect your life choices.

sirlynchmob,
There is 0% chance in your interpretation being correct, it leads to black hole's and over-looks so many fundamentals of Rules Writing.

Yet I'm still just wanting to lay across a battle field and state "By some guys interpretation on the internet I am Model, feel free to try and shoot me but you can't reduce my Wounds/Hull Points to 0 as I do not have them and because I am wider then 12 inches you will never be able to move your men to engage my force... forfeit yet?" Or better yet, seeing as we only have permission to deploy Models in 'Your Army' and the player is not selected as part of 'Your Army...' no entity not part of Your Army can ever occupy space on the board or over it, which makes moving models a little bit impossible. Maybe we can even go with the whole 'permission to move X inches is only granted to Unit Types: X Y and Z, as the player lacks any they have to sit perfectly still and never move a inch... first one to do so has completed an illegal action and has to forfeit!"

As fun as your interpenetration is, the Unit Type and Vehicle section contain Rules that over-write the 'basic infantry rules' by the fact they exist to specifically inform us how these other Unit Type's function.

JinxDragon wrote:
sirlynchmob,
There is 0% chance in your interpretation being correct, it leads to black hole's and over-looks so many fundamentals of Rules Writing.

Yet I'm still just wanting to lay across a battle field and state "By some guys interpretation on the internet I am Model, feel free to try and shoot me but you can't reduce my Wounds/Hull Points to 0 as I do not have them and because I am wider then 12 inches you will never be able to move your men to engage my force... forfeit yet?" Or better yet, seeing as we only have permission to deploy Models in 'Your Army' and the player is not selected as part of 'Your Army...' no entity not part of Your Army can ever occupy space on the board or over it, which makes moving models a little bit impossible. Maybe we can even go with the whole 'permission to move X inches is only granted to Unit Types: X Y and Z, as the player lacks any they have to sit perfectly still and never move a inch... first one to do so has completed an illegal action and has to forfeit!"

As fun as your interpenetration is, the Unit Type and Vehicle section contain Rules that over-write the 'basic infantry rules' by the fact they exist to specifically inform us how these other Unit Type's function.

LOL, nice strawman. and ad hominem

when you calm down let me know and we'll continue to discuss RAW.

RAW only infantry are models. the fact you'll include vehicles and not buildings shows how wrong you are. consistency in the rules should be added to the golden rule

I'm only taking your argument to the logical conclusion:
If anything that is lacking a Unit Type: vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then so am I, and that creates a great deal of problems as I now required to interact with the Rules in the same way as any other non-vehicle Model.

Instead, I include vehicles because they contain specific instructions on how to determine their Unit Type and what those Unit Types mean. Buildings lack this definition, not even a Unit Type: Fortification let alone a Unit Type: Building which I really would love to see in the Rules. As they lack any spefic Rule informing us that they meet the requirement to be a model, I will not be able to apply model related Rules to them. The only rules I will apply are those specifically designed for interacting with Buildings, Rules that wouldn't have to exist in the first place if Buildings where Models, because that is why they where Written.

This is one of the reasons I'm glad that the necron codex refers to "non-vehicle models" as "models" and vehicles as "vehicles".

I think you should get the special rules against buildings due to previous FAQs on the subject.

For example, entropic strike specifically states that it can lower the armor value of a vehicle. The FAQ states that entropic strike can also be used against buildings.

If entropic strike can be used against a building, why wouldn't melta, lance, armourbane, ect?

JinxDragon wrote:
I'm only taking your argument to the logical conclusion:
If anything that is lacking a Unit Type: vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then so am I, and that creates a great deal of problems as I now required to interact with the Rules in the same way as any other non-vehicle Model.

Instead, I include vehicles because they contain specific instructions on how to determine their Unit Type and what those Unit Types mean. Buildings lack this definition, not even a Unit Type: Fortification let alone a Unit Type: Building which I really would love to see in the Rules. As they lack any spefic Rule informing us that they meet the requirement to be a INFANTRY model, I will not be able to apply INFANTRY model related Rules to them. The only rules I will apply are those specifically designed for interacting with Buildings, Rules that wouldn't have to exist in the first place if Buildings where Models, because that is why they where Written.

Fixed that for you, you take them from not being an infantry model and like your argument take it to it's logical fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum.

Just like a vengeance weapon battery can auto fire it's quad gun with skyfire, and use the skyfire rule even though the SR worded for "models" Buildings work much better in the rules when treated as models they are. and the universe doesn't collapse from it.

I'm curious where in the rule book it says that buildings are treated as vehicles in CC. I found where is says they are treated that way for shooting, but all I could find for CC was that buildings are hit automatically. So even if you say melta works when shooting (Which it should IMO) the rules don't say you treat it as a vehicle for CC.

Jestar wrote:
I'm curious where in the rule book it says that buildings are treated as vehicles in CC. I found where is says they are treated that way for shooting, but all I could find for CC was that buildings are hit automatically. So even if you say melta works when shooting (Which it should IMO) the rules don't say you treat it as a vehicle for CC.

Read the rule again, after shooting it says charge. it's all the same bolded rule.

Ah cheers, thanks for that

Which brings us once more to the fact the Rule book informs us that buildings use a range of rules for Vehicles and then goes about informing us which Rules these are and how to go about resolving them as they proclaim to Vehicles. This includes instructions granting the Building permission to Fire any weapons it possess, providing us with vitally needed instructions on how to go about doing that as well. This grants us permission to consider the Building a Model with Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport), but only in the exact moments laid out by the Building rules. Any time we are outside of those situations we do not have permission to treat it as a Vehicle, and at that point it looses it's Model status and the rules no longer can interact with it as if it was a Building.

I, again, highlight that this entire Rule-set would have no purpose if the building was a friendly-model by default!

You may as well stop arguing, Sirlynchmob will not change his position, regardless of empirical evidence.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
You may as well stop arguing, Sirlynchmob will not change his position, regardless of empirical evidence.

...which is empirically a true statement, given the empirical evidence for the statement that is available.

The rulebook requires any model to have a unit type; if it has no unit type it is not a model. Non-vehicle non-model is a correct way to describe a building, but it is redundant as vehicle is a model type and therefore the non-model designation handily disqualifies it from being a vehicle either.

Jinx, if we are now models (since we are non-vehicle models), does that mean we can just put our arms around our army to prevent enemy models from approaching, since they would not be able to move within 1" of us?

Probably violates Rules on deploying Models, hence why I wonder if it is even possible for us to interact with the game at all under that interpretation...
After all, if everything that is not a Vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then we have to interact with the rules in th same way as other Non-vehicle Models to be legal.

JinxDragon wrote:
Probably violates Rules on deploying Models, hence why I wonder if it is even possible for us to interact with the game at all under that interpretation...
After all, if everything that is not a Vehicle is a 'non-vehicle model' then we have to interact with the rules in th same way as other Non-vehicle Models to be legal.

Keep tilting at that windmill, I thought this was a RAW forum. Now didn't you just get done saying

JinxDragon wrote:
This grants us permission to consider the Building a Model with Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport), but only in the exact moments laid out by the Building rules.

A non-vehicle model is a model that is not a vehicle. Since Buildings are not models they cannot be a non-vehicle model.

so now you're claiming it's a model and not a model at the same time. LOL

Here you are saying it's a model, and it's not a vehicle. meeting your own criteria for armorbane not to work.

sirlynchmob,
I repetitively have put forth that Buildings are "Unit Type: Vehicles (Transport)" in certain situations, because the Rules inform us of that fact, and always have concluded that anything which effects a Vehicle will have permission to effect a Building in those situations thanks to the whole 'count as' fundamental. It is you whom keeps trying to take part of that argument out of context, just like you try and take half of the defined terminology 'Non-Vehicle Model' out of context, in order to support a false conclusion. The fact you have been shown how this breaks all sorts of Rules, and have been given page and paragraph quotes to the Rules giving support to the alternative interpretation while you can only put forth these 'out of context' arguments, should of been enough to convince anyone of their mistake.

Still, you are entitled to your Opinion but good luck getting anyone else to agree with you when people can point to a sentence stating that Buildings use aspects of the Vehicle (Transport) Rules and then the following page which defines those aspects and how they work for buildings.

As for the 'windmill,' it was your argument that anything which isn't classified as a 'Vehicle Model' must therefore be a 'non-vehicle Model.' For that to apply to Buildings it must also be universally applicable to everything else that meets the same criteria or else it has been proven false right there and there. This creates a large number of problems because only a very few things in the game have been defined as Vehicles, while some other things meet the definition of a non-vehicle model by being models and not being vehicles. Everything else, including the players and the table itself, are never defined as 'non-Vehicle Models' or 'Vehicle Models' in order to prevent them from having to interact with the Rules as Written in strange and broken ways.

Your interpretation makes the players into Models, and creates these problems.

Again for me and my group:
RAW: ???
RAI: Don't care
HIWPI: Armourbane, melta, ect work on fortifications.

And that's all that matters.

jinx
Let me know when you start being logical, when you have to try and declare something a model, yet not a model at the same time.

If your idea of logic is to first call something a model, then turn around and call it a non-model to get a special rule to work, it's not going to convince anyone, and makes it seem like you're being TFG.

If RAW buildings being models, lead you to think they should apply to you deploying yourself, that's more of your non-logic. What if your opponent is a paid model in the military and is in a infantry unit? OMG the rules are broke. That's not RAW, that's chicken little. Because in context of the rules you think have including the rules to yourself to disprove my position while claiming context lol

I at least stick with one interpretation. "buildings are not infantry models, they are models though" If we go through everything that interacts with buildings we'd probably match up 90% RAW. the 10% difference would be when you start this "it's a model, but it's not a model" argument. my way is consistent, you're way picks and chooses when to apply model to buildings, creating real RAW issues and makes you look like TFG. But, you're entitled to you hypocrisy.

Let me ask you as simple question:
A Building is placed in the center of the map at the start of the game, during terrain placement, and neither side has yet entered this building....
What prevents it from being shot at if it is a Model that does not belong to Your Army?

Under the interpretation that I, and many other here, utilize it can only be considered a Vehicle (Transport) Model once it has met the Criteria put forth by the Rules. This Criteria is very easy to meet, any question concerning a building likely falls within the ~ 95% of the times the building has already triggered the 'uses aspects of Vehicle (Transport) Rule.' In fact, the above question is one of the few situations in which the Building does not meet the criteria. At that point it is not recognized as a 'Friendly Model,' Vehicle or otherwise, but still fails to trigger the General permission we have to target and fire at it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Let me ask you as simple question:
A Building is placed in the center of the map at the start of the game, during terrain placement, and neither side has yet entered this building....

What prevents it from being shot at if it is a Model that does not belong to your Army?

So your trying to say it's a dilapidated building?

RAW, neither side can shoot at it as it's not a enemy unit it can't be targeted. pg 12 (enemy unit you can see)
stronghold assault pg 15 clarifies this.

not sure of the point you want to make here because Model or non-model has nothing to do with it.

speaking of odd shooting, if you shoot at a unit near a building with a blast weapon and it scatters onto the building with no units in the battlements, is there a model under the template to be hit?
How about skyfire? can a VWB use it's normal BS to shoot at fliers?

Should the building be unclaimed, there is only Terrain under the blast maker and that does not created a 'wound pool' or triggered 'Armour Penetration Rolls.'

As for the SkyFire:
The building is using Aspects of the Vehicle (transport) Rules at that point in time, and can be interacted as a Model for that reason alone.

JinxDragon wrote:
Should the building be unclaimed, there is only Terrain under the blast maker and that does not created a 'wound pool' or triggered 'Armour Penetration Rolls.'

As for the SkyFire:
The building is using Aspects of the Vehicle (transport) Rules at that point in time, and can be interacted as a Model for that reason alone.

Is this how you play it though?

I'm glad you're consistent here, others on the non-model side have disagreed with blast markers.

Now since the blast did not see any models under the template, how about a fortification, macro cannon aquila strongpoint with no units on the battlements, shoots it's blast weapon (autofire) at the nearest enemy and it scatters back onto itself? Is there still just terrain under the marker or is there a model under the blast marker?

I, personally, have a always had problems when it comes to Buildings and the way they where so badly written into the book. For that reason I would always discuss these things ahead of time, find out how my opponent wants to play it and go with that for the duration of that game. Many people rather treat the Building as a full fledged Model and I honestly have no problem with that because it is far more simple then the half a dozen pages the Authors have given us. I also prefer the tactical advantage of being able to destroy unclaimed buildings from Turn 1, to deny my opponent firing points prior to them actually getting into those superior positions. I won't force this House Rule onto people, nor use it in a Rule Debating Forum, but if they are willing and able I am more then happy to allow it.

I think my frustration comes from the fact that it would of easily been fixed had the Authors simply created a "Unit Type: Vehicle (Building / Fortification)" and given them a proper profile. Buildings function so similar to Vehicles, in all bar that once in a blue moon situation where it is technically not a Model, that it just makes damn sense to create a Unit Type designed for just them. The other way they could have fixed the problem was to embrace the concept of 'Neutral Models' and tell us how to interact with them, likely a simple line stating they can not be targeted or removed as casualties. This new terminology could be applied to all Terrain pieces, with some of them having additional exceptions to the Neutral Model Rules. Such as Buildings which would have a sentence stating they can be Targeted if 'claimed,' like they already do, plus an additional sentence allowing them to be Removed as Casualties, something that was only added in Stonghold Assault in any case.

As for the Aquila Cannon thingy:
The shooting sequence can be resolved against it, thanks to it's claimed status and the 'utilizing the 'Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport) Rules' sentence granting it permission to access said sequence in the first place.

JinxDragon wrote:
I, personally, have a always had problems when it comes to Buildings and the way they where so badly written into the book. For that reason I would always discuss these things ahead of time, find out how my opponent wants to play it and go with that for the duration of that game. Many people rather treat the Building as a full fledged Model and I honestly have no problem with that because it is far more simple then the half a dozen pages the Authors have given us. I also prefer the tactical advantage of being able to destroy unclaimed buildings from Turn 1, to deny my opponent firing points prior to them actually getting into those superior positions.

I think my frustration comes from the fact that it would of easily been fixed had the Authors simply created a "Unit Type: Vehicle (Building / Fortification)" and given them a proper profile. Buildings function so similar to Vehicles, in all bar that once in a blue moon situation where it is technically not a Model, that it just makes damn sense to create a Unit Type designed for just them. The other way they could of fixed the problem was to create a Rule stating Terrain classify as 'Neutral Models' and tell us how to interact with them, which would likely be a simple line stating they can not be targeted or damaged. Buildings would then have an exception to this Rule, giving permission to Target if 'claimed' like they already do and one stating it can be damaged even if unclaimed.

As for the Aquila Cannon thingy:
The shooting sequence can be resolved against it, thanks to it's claimed status and the 'utilizing the 'Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport) Rules' sentence granting it permission to access said sequence in the first place.

so if we were to play, the only contention between what I claim is RAW, and HYWPI, seems to be from armor bane. that hardly equates to me being 0% correct and we should just throw out all the rules eh?

Because armorbane means nothing to me, I don't bring buildings, I bring a skyshield, and I have no units with armorbane, so I bet we would end up agreeing with all the rules as they pertain to buildings based on our two different ways to get to those conclusions.

the aquila cannon highlights the flaw in those who stick to a building is never to be considered a model ever. As that means the aquila weapons could place the blast marker over itself to hit any unit on the battlements, and buildings are immune to blast markers unless they are specifically targeted so they can be shot like a vehicle.

If we are discussing House Rules there is not correct/incorrect answer. If we are discussing Rule as Written then the only correct answer is 'terrain are not models' and all the problems that come with that are Rule as Written supported. I've never tried to state that the Rules as Written, for Terrain in particular, is 100% logical and rational. Nor have I ever claimed that Rule as Written have never lead us into broken situations in the past. There are many examples where the Rules as Written have been lacking but that doesn't make the House Rules used to fix them 'correct.'

In this situation I hold to the interpretation that the sentence informing us that Buildings use 'aspects of Vehicle Transports" grants it permission to be count as a Vehicle for the purpose of the Rules following that statement as that is the closest we can come to Rule as Written support for Buildings to be Models... now if the following Rules where not all about 'claimed' buildings I could allow that to be a blanked statement for all Buildings being Vehicle Models....

JinxDragon wrote:
If we are discussing House Rules there is not correct/incorrect answer. If we are discussing Rule as Written then the only correct answer is 'terrain are not models' and all the problems that come with that are Rule as Written supported. I've never tried to state that the Rules as Written, for Terrain in particular, is 100% logical and rational. Nor have I ever claimed that Rule as Written have never lead us into broken situations in the past. There are many examples where the Rules as Written have been lacking but that doesn't make the House Rules used to correct them 'correct.'

I just hold the interpretation that the sentence informing us that Buildings use 'aspects of Vehicle Transports" grants it permission to be count as a Vehicle for the purpose of the Rules following that statement... now if the following Rules where not all about 'claimed' buildings I could allow that to be a blanked statement for all Buildings being Vehicle Models....

and that hard line, means RAW buildings are immune to any blast marker not specifically shot at them. It also leads to any building with a blast weapon to be able to fire it's blast with the template touching the building, as long as the hole is over the enemy model.

Then after the blast scatters, the unit suffers one hit for each model, which the non-model camp will tell you buildings are neither a unit nor model. ergo immune to blasts. it can even place it's blast over it's battlements as the blast rules tells us how infantry models work, vehicle rules restrict placing the marker touching it's hull, buildings have no such restrictions nor a hull.

Because in the end the argument for non-model is "it's not a infantry model, so it's not a model" But we'll allow vehicles to be models and ignore all the other rules about models because it has a vehicle type.

what is the strength, toughness or wounds of a vehicle? 0 eh? so they're auto removed at the beginning of the game RAW like models are. see the buildings are not models because they're not infantry leads to some really absurd situations especially when followed with but vehicles are.

now read through the rules again and put the word 'infantry' in front of all usages of the word model and the rules start making a whole lot more sense.

so RAW we have 2 rules for models that only apply to infantry. RAW only infantry are models and vehicles are vehicles. And buildings can't be specifically called a vehicle as it doesn't have hull points.

So we either play by some really absurd RAW, or we can use model as grammatically correct and it can mean infantry, vehicle, building or terrain in the context of the rule we're discussing.

so in the end at least be consistent and not picking and choosing when to use model. It's all or nothing, when you start picking and choosing you move into TFG territory.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Because in the end the argument for non-model is "it's not a infantry model, so it's not a model" But we'll allow vehicles to be models and ignore all the other rules about models because it has a vehicle type.

When has anyone said that non-infantry models are not models?

what is the strength, toughness or wounds of a vehicle? 0 eh? so they're auto removed at the beginning of the game RAW like models are. see the buildings are not models because they're not infantry leads to some really absurd situations especially when followed with but vehicles are.

They are not 0, they are non-existent. And again, no one has said that buildings are not models because they are not Infantry. They are not models because they do not have a stat line nor a Unit type.

so RAW we have 2 rules for models that only apply to infantry. RAW only infantry are models and vehicles are vehicles. And buildings can't be specifically called a vehicle as it doesn't have hull points.

Then what are Beasts, Cavalry, Monstrous Creatures, and Flying Monstrous Creatures?

so in the end at least be consistent and not picking and choosing when to use model. It's all or nothing, when you start picking and choosing you move into TFG territory.

Some of us are being consistent. Does the thing in question have a statline and unit type? If so it is a model (per the Warhammer 40K rules). If not, it is not a model (per the Warhammer 40K rules).

An Undefined Value does not mean the value is 0, and seeing the Rule you are referencing requires it to reach 0 before the model is removed as Casualty this is a non-issue. Like wise, Buildings still do not have Hull Points or wounds, so there is no way for any number of 'Glancing Hits' or 'wound creating hits' to ever trigger the Remove as Casualty conditions spelled out in the Rules. If it wasn't for Stronghold assault giving us another method to remove a Building as a Casualty there would be a grand count of Zero for the number of situations that would lead to a Building being removed as a Casualty... and it still would be a non-issue, annoying but a non-issue.

I do understand what you are trying to do with the Infantry model stance but even if you where correct it doesn't have the effect of making Buildings into Models. It would have the effect of making the entire rule book a Black Hole when it comes to anything but infantry, along the same line as 'models without eyes can not fire or assault.' Instead people are going to rely on the fundamental concept that "Specific Rules trump Basic Rules," and point out that even if the the Basic Rules where designed with Infantry in mind they still stand for every other Unit Type as well, except where the more Specific Rule within creates a conflict, as they are the only Rules we have and therefore need to be the default. Should there be any complaint over that interpenetration then they will fall back on a universal 'House Rule' to ignore the conflict entirely and proceed as if the Rule book did state that all basic rules apply to all unit types, except when there is a conflict between the two.

As for your closing statement:
I treat them as Models when they meet the definition of a Model and treat them as non-models should they fail that definition, that is my constant stance on the matter.

 Happyjew wrote:


Some of us are being consistent. Does the thing in question have a statline and unit type? If so it is a INFANTRY model (per the Warhammer 40K rules). If not, it is not a INFANTRY model (per the Warhammer 40K rules).

When has anyone said that non-infantry models are not models?

You just did, the rules you are quoting only apply to infantry models. pg 44. So I fixed it for you.

Then what are Beasts, Cavalry, Monstrous Creatures, and Flying Monstrous Creatures?

as pg 44 tells us, they are infantry.

Beasts, Cavalry, Monstrous Creatures, and Flying Monstrous Creatures are not Infantry...

If they were they would be able to embark on a transport.

"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)." (44)

Infantry is a unit type, Beasts are a unit type, etc...