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.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ergo the buildings you bring are friendly, the buildings your opponent brings are enemy.

Pretty much this, yes.

They're not friendly units, for wherever that matters, but they are 'friendly', for where that matters.

Just so we are clear they are not friendly models or friendly units.

It's really not worth having that argument. Not being units largely eliminates any need to care whether or not they are considered models.

 insaniak wrote:
It's really not worth having that argument. Not being units largely eliminates any need to care whether or not they are considered models.

Except you can only allocate wounds to models, and if you can't see any "models" when shooting the wound pool empties.

However, you are not allocating 'wounds' to the building in any way or shape even in situations where you have permission to inflict damage. These non-models have special rules related to them, granting you permission to carry out attacks against them and informing you how to deal with the damage generated. It is these unique rule that grant you permission to allocate the hits even if you would otherwise not be able to do so, regardless if the building is a unit/model within line of sight for 'wound allocation.' Yet these rules do not have you allocating the damage to the building itself as it takes extra care to point out that these buildings do not have any method of being destroyed themselves. No hit points exist in order to turn them into wrecks and even 'total destruction' results on the damage table do nothing aside from deny models the power to embark into it past that point and destroy any emplaced weapons, the building itself is not turned into a crater or battlefield debris like vehicles are and even still contains the flag 'building' after this event.

All of the special rules granting you the ability to deal damage lead to wounds being resolved against the models inside, hell they even get to take saves still!

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's really not worth having that argument. Not being units largely eliminates any need to care whether or not they are considered models.

Except you can only allocate wounds to models, and if you can't see any "models" when shooting the wound pool empties.

Yes, as has been discussed since 6th edition was released, the fortification rules don't work.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's really not worth having that argument. Not being units largely eliminates any need to care whether or not they are considered models.

Except you can only allocate wounds to models, and if you can't see any "models" when shooting the wound pool empties.

Yes, as has been discussed since 6th edition was released, the fortification rules don't work.

But with buildings being models (either directly or indirectly), then the rules do work, and with them being friendly and enemy, all the buildings work as intended. including those impassible vengeance ones.

Which makes it a reasonable house rule.

It doesn't change the fact that the rules have a very strict definition of what constitutes a model, and fortifications don't fit that definition.

 insaniak wrote:
Which makes it a reasonable house rule.

It doesn't change the fact that the rules have a very strict definition of what constitutes a model, and fortifications don't fit that definition.

I disagree. The very first rule does make them a model.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Which makes it a reasonable house rule.

It doesn't change the fact that the rules have a very strict definition of what constitutes a model, and fortifications don't fit that definition.

I disagree. The very first rule does make them a model.

So where's the profile for fortification characteristics? You know, since the brb states that every model has a characteristic profile.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Which makes it a reasonable house rule.

It doesn't change the fact that the rules have a very strict definition of what constitutes a model, and fortifications don't fit that definition.

I disagree. The very first rule does make them a model.

So where's the profile for fortification characteristics? You know, since the brb states that every model has a characteristic profile.

Also, what is its Unit Type?

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's really not worth having that argument. Not being units largely eliminates any need to care whether or not they are considered models.

Except you can only allocate wounds to models, and if you can't see any "models" when shooting the wound pool empties.

Yes, as has been discussed since 6th edition was released, the fortification rules don't work.

Except the pool doesn't empty - you're required to shoot at it like a vehicle. Do you empty the pool when shooting a vehicle?

Is it a citadel miniature used to play 40k? Yep
and therefore it's referred to as a model in the rules.

Does it have advanced rules that apply to a specific model? Yep

does it call itself a model? Yep

Is there a specific definition for a model? no
Are you just reading 1/2 sentences making up your own definition? yep

And if that's not good enough to call it a model, then:
Does it count as a vehicle? yep
are vehicles models? sure
what's the main difference between a vehicle and a building? buildings don't move.
You treat it like a vehicle model the entire game, so it's the same thing as it just being a model.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is it a citadel miniature used to play 40k? Yep
and therefore it's referred to as a model in the rules.

This is because it is a physical model, it still does not fit what 40k considers to be a Model for game purposes.

Does it have advanced rules that apply to a specific model? Yep

Irrelevant.

does it call itself a model? Yep

Irrelevant (See the part about physical model).

Is there a specific definition for a model? no
Are you just reading 1/2 sentences making up your own definition? yep.

False and False.

There is a definition of model, it is the citadel mini that has a profile and it has a unit type.

That is knowledge gained by reading the whole sentences of all of the involved rules...

You treat it like a vehicle model the entire game, so it's the same thing as it just being a model.

1/2 true. You treat it as a vehicle sometimes, not all the time.

as per the rules it is not a model or a unit and you still have failed to provide rules to the contrary.

Do you have any actual rules quotes that say they are a model/unit?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is it a citadel miniature used to play 40k? Yep
and therefore it's referred to as a model in the rules.

Does it have advanced rules that apply to a specific model? Yep

does it call itself a model? Yep

Is there a specific definition for a model? no
Are you just reading 1/2 sentences making up your own definition? yep

BRB wrote:Page 2: Models represent a huge variety of troops. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristic profile.

So the very first paragraph tells us that models have a characteristics profile. Where can I find the characteristics profile for a Bastion or FoR?

Page 3 - Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics

So now we know not only do models have characteristics they have a profile. Where can I find the profile for the Bastion or FoR?

Page 3 - In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, which we discuss in more depth on page 44

We also know that models have a unit type. What is the unit type for Bastions or FoR?

Page 3 - To reflect the many differences between creatures of flesh and blood and constructs of adamantium and warp-forged metal, vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics.

This tells us that vehicles have slightly different characteristics than normal and details are given elsewhere.

Page 44 - To do justice to the full pomp and panoply of xenos creatures, 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

This tells us, that while vehicles are not discussed under Unit Types, it is due to the number of differences so they have their own section.

Edit: DR/rigeld/nos et al. Did I miss anything?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is it a citadel miniature used to play 40k? Yep
and therefore it's referred to as a model in the rules.

This is because it is a physical model, it still does not fit what 40k considers to be a Model for game purposes.

Does it have advanced rules that apply to a specific model? Yep

Irrelevant.

does it call itself a model? Yep

Irrelevant (See the part about physical model).

Do you have any actual rules quotes that say they are a model/unit?

Yep, so do you have any rules that take away it's model status? nope

IF you can just declare rules as irrelevant, then I can declare all your quotes as irrelevant.

1/2 true. You treat it as a vehicle sometimes, not all the time.

So according to you, at what times is it considered a vehicle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Happyjew

pg 116 & 117 As they count as vehicles that don't move, you have a vehicle profile for them.

So as a building is a model (or treated like one so there is no noticeable difference), and each model will have a unit type, then clearly the building has a unit type as well. one complete profile: Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport). WS: - BS:2 S:- armor:14 I:- A:- HP/NA

HJ, You seem to have asked all the questions that sirlynchmob has not been able to answer with any rules support thus far.

sirlynchmob the Onus is on you to prove it is a model. Remember this is a permissive ruleset. It is not unless the rules say it is...

It is only treated like a vehicle when the rules say it is, like when you shoot at it, once you are done shooting at it it is no longer treated as a vehicle until another rule tells you to treat it like a vehicle.

 DeathReaper wrote:
HJ, You seem to have asked all the questions that sirlynchmob has not been able to answer with any rules support thus far.

sirlynchmob the Onus is on you to prove it is a model. Remmember this is a permissive ruleset. It is not unless the rules say it is...

Yes and the first rule defines it as a model for use in the rules. And it calls itself a model. and the rules apply to models.

3 permissions, nothing that removes those permissions.

quit editing already, so anytime you interact with the building it's treated like a vehicle. And vehicles are models right?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
HJ, You seem to have asked all the questions that sirlynchmob has not been able to answer with any rules support thus far.

sirlynchmob the Onus is on you to prove it is a model. Remember this is a permissive ruleset. It is not unless the rules say it is...

Yes and the first rule defines it as a model for use in the rules. And it calls itself a model. and the rules apply to models.

3 permissions, nothing that removes those permissions.

Except the pesky line that states "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, which we discuss in more depth on page 44" (3)

If it does not have a unit type it can not be a model...

sirlynchmob wrote:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport). WS: - BS:2 S:- armor:14 I:- A:- HP/NA

What page is that on?
And why does it have BS2?
Gun emplacements can fire at BS2, but why would that be in the building statline?






Or did you just make it up?

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport). WS: - BS:2 S:- armor:14 I:- A:- HP/NA

What page is that on?
And why does it have BS2?
Gun emplacements can fire at BS2, but why would that be in the building statline?

Or did you just make it up?

BS2 is from automatic fire, ie when the building shoots it's own guns.

Vehicles have characteristics, when you interact with the building you treat it like a vehicle. Walla

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
HJ, You seem to have asked all the questions that sirlynchmob has not been able to answer with any rules support thus far.

sirlynchmob the Onus is on you to prove it is a model. Remmember this is a permissive ruleset. It is not unless the rules say it is...

Yes and the first rule defines it as a model for use in the rules. And it calls itself a model. and the rules apply to models.

3 permissions, nothing that removes those permissions.

quit editing already, so anytime you interact with the building it's treated like a vehicle. And vehicles are models right?

You still have not answered my questions. All I want to know is what page number I can find the characteristics, profiles and unit types for buildings. If you can tell me the page number, I'm sure I can find the specific location on the page.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport). WS: - BS:2 S:- armor:14 I:- A:- HP/NA

What page is that on?
And why does it have BS2?
Gun emplacements Emplaced Weapons can fire at BS2, but why would that be in the building statline?

Or did you just make it up?

BS2 is from automatic fire, ie when the building shoots it's own guns.

Vehicles have characteristics, when you interact with the building you treat it like a vehicle. Walla

Buildings do not have Automated fire. Emplaced Guns do.
It has no place in a building statline.
Lets just be honest here, it's a made up statline.
It's not in the rulebook, and it's not entirely accurate.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Unit Type: Vehicle (Transport). WS: - BS:2 S:- armor:14 I:- A:- HP/NA

What page is that on?
And why does it have BS2?
Gun emplacements Emplaced Weapons can fire at BS2, but why would that be in the building statline?

Or did you just make it up?

BS2 is from automatic fire, ie when the building shoots it's own guns.

Vehicles have characteristics, when you interact with the building you treat it like a vehicle. Walla

Buildings do not have Automated fire. Emplaced Guns do.
It has no place in a building statline.
Lets just be honest here, it's a made up statline.
It's not in the rulebook, and it's not entirely accurate.

not made up, rationally inferred based on buildings being treated like vehicles.
How about just vehicle characteristic: Armor 14
Type: Transport
there we go profile & type when it's being interacted with and along with it, model.

Because the main difference between a vehicle model and a building model, is buildings don't move. if a vehicle is a model, then so is a building every time you look at it. And it can be interacted with in all 3 phases of both players turns, if you choose to or not.

sirlynchmob wrote:
not made up, rationally inferred based on buildings being treated like vehicles.
How about just vehicle characteristic: Armor 14
Type: Transport
there we go profile & type when it's being interacted with and along with it, model.

Because the main difference between a vehicle model and a building model, is buildings don't move. if a vehicle is a model, then so is a building every time you look at it. And it can be interacted with in all 3 phases of both players turns, if you choose to or not.

You still have not answered my questions. All I want to know is what page number I can find the characteristics, profiles and unit types for buildings. If you can tell me the page number, I'm sure I can find the specific location on the page.

Rational or not, it's made up.
It's not in the rulebook, but your own creation.

Anyway, back on course. I'm sure you're eager to give Happyjew the answers to his question he's so patiently waiting for. I'll detain you no longer.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
not made up, rationally inferred based on buildings being treated like vehicles.
How about just vehicle characteristic: Armor 14
Type: Transport
there we go profile & type when it's being interacted with and along with it, model.

Because the main difference between a vehicle model and a building model, is buildings don't move. if a vehicle is a model, then so is a building every time you look at it. And it can be interacted with in all 3 phases of both players turns, if you choose to or not.

You still have not answered my questions. All I want to know is what page number I can find the characteristics, profiles and unit types for buildings. If you can tell me the page number, I'm sure I can find the specific location on the page.

I did answer that you've now asked 3 times after I posted it.
pg 116, that page you guys seem to find that page irrelevant because it says "as per model" If it's not a model then how do you know what access and fire points it has?

Scroll back a bit you'll see it.

And maybe you can answer this question: If it's not a model, then how do the shooting and assault rules work with them?

but wait a second, since when do buildings have hulls? don't they have walls & a roof? As it has no hull then it's immune to blast and barrage weapons right?

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 116, that page you guys seem to find that page irrelevant because it says "as per model" If it's not a model then how do you know what access and fire points it has?

That would be model as in miniature, the physical model, not the game defined model. This is proven as the game definition of model has no mention of fire points. It can only refer to the physical model.

And maybe you can answer this question: If it's not a model, then how do the shooting and assault rules work with them?

"Attacking Buildings" page 93

but wait a second, since when do buildings have hulls? don't they have walls & a roof? As it has no hull then it's immune to blast and barrage weapons right?

See "Attacking Buildings" page 93

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 116, that page you guys seem to find that page irrelevant because it says "as per model" If it's not a model then how do you know what access and fire points it has?

That would be model as in miniature, the physical model, not the game defined model. This is proven as the game definition of model has no mention of fire points. It can only refer to the physical model.

And maybe you can answer this question: If it's not a model, then how do the shooting and assault rules work with them?

"Attacking Buildings" page 93

but wait a second, since when do buildings have hulls? don't they have walls & a roof? As it has no hull then it's immune to blast and barrage weapons right?

See "Attacking Buildings" page 93

a physical model is a model right? A model that has rules specific to it?
"advanced rules apply to specific types of models"
So that's two that have admitted they're models, but created this made up a false dichotomy between physical model, and defined model.

And where does it say buildings have hulls?

There's a difference between a Tank and a Tank.
The game definition of a tank stops when it comes into contact with an enemy vehicle.
A physical Tank doesn't.

There absolutely is a difference between a physical model and a game defined model. It's not made up. One is made of plastic, one has a statline.

When it says "as per model" in regards to fire points, it can only refer to the physical model.
Unless you can show where it is really referring to?
In the game defined model, where are the fire points?

 grendel083 wrote:
There's a difference between a Tank and a Tank.
The game definition of a tank stops when it comes into contact with an enemy vehicle.
A physical Tank doesn't.

There absolutely is a difference between a physical model and a game defined model. It's not made up. One is made of plastic, one has a statline.

When it says "as per model" in regards to fire points, it can only refer to the physical model.
Unless you can show where it is really referring to?
In the game defined model, where are the fire points?

so you're saying that buildings have no fire points?

But if vehicles are models in the game, then why aren't buildings while being treated as vehicles?

But the more I look at pg2 & 3, there is really no way vehicles are supposed to count as models, as backed up by the faq preventing them from firing gun emplacements.
40k uses 9 different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models. Do vehicles have 9 characteristics?
models have characteristic profiles, vehicles have vehicle characteristics. Not the same
models have unit types, vehicles have vehicle types. Not the same
Both models & vehicles can be in units.

Everyplace you see the word model in the book it refers to squishy, I have wounds models
you never see vehicles flat out called models
And all the rules you guys try to quote to say they're models really just show they're not.

Models have bases
vehicles: have many DIFFERENT rules
pg 44 so far we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry pg 2-44 are about infantry.
pg 70 vehicle rules are compiled in this section. which never mentions models nor that vehicles are models.
in a similar way to infantry, however their characteristics are different
and squadrons rules, along with that bit on pg 3 about units, must be talking about a physical model and not a game defined model.

so I'm going to go rethink if buildings actually need to be defined as models to make them work, and I look forward to discussing it again next week.

Jinxdragon, you make some well thought out posts and make a great point.