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.

The quad gun is not an enemy model and thus you can move within one inch of it. If someone were to tank shock the unit manning it and end their movement on top of it would it be destroyed? The unit will either move out of the way or flee but the gun is immobile and any. Models that can't be moved are removed from play?? What are your thoughts on this Dakka?

The gun emplacement is not a Model. It is Terrain.

 Khorvahn wrote:
The quad gun is not an enemy model and thus you can move within one inch of it. If someone were to tank shock the unit manning it and end their movement on top of it would it be destroyed? The unit will either move out of the way or flee but the gun is immobile and any. Models that can't be moved are removed from play?? What are your thoughts on this Dakka?

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is true.

But what is also true is that The quad gun is not a model at all as it lacks a unit type. The Quad Gun is Terrain, battlefield debris to be exact, and follows the terrain rules for such.

The biggest difference being that it can be hurt as it is a T7 3+ save 2 wound peice of terrain.

So while no, your vehicle cannot ram or tank shock it away, template weapons can easily remove it.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The biggest difference being that it can be hurt as it is a T7 3+ save 2 wound peice of terrain.

So while no, your vehicle cannot ram or tank shock it away, template weapons can easily remove it.

it is a model see pg 2, just not a "enemy model". It's also not a enemy unit so you can't tank shock it.

if it's not a model then you can't use templates or markers against it. You count models under the template to see if they're hit.

I dont think i mentioned anything about models in my post?

what exactly were you trying to correct me on?

Eihnlazer wrote:
I dont think i mentioned anything about models in my post?

what exactly were you trying to correct me on?

well if the two posters above you are correct and the quad gun is not a model, then you can not hit it with template/blast weapons as they count models under the template to see if you hit them. So I figured I'd correct those 2 again that the quad gun is a model and highlight to the OP that if you go with "it's not a model" then your post of you can hit them with templates would be incorrect.

If the quad gun is a model, then you can hit them with blasts and templates.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I dont think i mentioned anything about models in my post?

what exactly were you trying to correct me on?

well if the two posters above you are correct and the quad gun is not a model, then you can not hit it with template/blast weapons as they count models under the template to see if you hit them. So I figured I'd correct those 2 again that the quad gun is a model and highlight to the OP that if you go with "it's not a model" then your post of you can hit them with templates would be incorrect.

If the quad gun is a model, then you can hit them with blasts and templates.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not true. The terrain has rules that say that it can be attacked in shooting and CC, unlike other terrain...

The red text is incorrect as there is nothing to correct. The Quad gun is definitely not a model.

I assume you are talking about this entry in the rulebook: "each model has its own characteristics profile." (2) Good point, it would be a model if not for page 3: "In additon to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry" (3)

What is the unit type of the quad gun?

It has no unit type. Therefore it is not a Model as 40K defines it. It is terrain (Battlefield debris to be exact).

You can shoot it and attack it in CC because the gun has specific rules telling you that this is possible.

It is still however, terrain...

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I dont think i mentioned anything about models in my post?

what exactly were you trying to correct me on?

well if the two posters above you are correct and the quad gun is not a model, then you can not hit it with template/blast weapons as they count models under the template to see if you hit them. So I figured I'd correct those 2 again that the quad gun is a model and highlight to the OP that if you go with "it's not a model" then your post of you can hit them with templates would be incorrect.

If the quad gun is a model, then you can hit them with blasts and templates.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not true. The terrain has rules that say that it can be attacked in shooting and CC, unlike other terrain...

The red text is incorrect as there is nothing to correct. The Quad gun is definitely not a model.

"In additon to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry" (3)

What is the unit type of the quad gun?

It has no unit type. Therefore it is not a Model as 40K defines it. It is terrain (Battlefield debris to be exact).

You can shoot it and attack it in CC because the gun has specific rules telling you that this is possible.

It is still however, terrain...

pg 2 first line, is it a citadel model? Yep, is it a miniature used in 40k? yep. It is then given permission to be referred to as a model in the rules that follow. that permission is never revoked. and the part you keep skipping over "each model has it's own characteristics profile" and the gun emplacement has a profile.

If it's not a model you can shoot it, you just can't hit it with template or blasts correct? As you count models under T/B's and if its not a model, it can't be hit. so just be consistent in the rules.

 Khorvahn wrote:
The quad gun is not an enemy model and thus you can move within one inch of it. If someone were to tank shock the unit manning it and end their movement on top of it would it be destroyed? The unit will either move out of the way or flee but the gun is immobile and any. Models that can't be moved are removed from play?? What are your thoughts on this Dakka?

To answer OP's original question, no it would not be destroyed. The quadgun is terrain, and thus you can place (balance?) a tank conveniently on its tip and it would be perfectly legal.

Of course, most players will agree that it is a classic example of impassable terrain.

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 2 first line, is it a citadel model? Yep, is it a miniature used in 40k? yep. It is then given permission to be referred to as a model in the rules that follow. that permission is never revoked.

Incorrect.

and the part you keep skipping over "each model has it's own characteristics profile" and the gun emplacement has a profile.

If it's not a model you can shoot it, you just can't hit it with template or blasts correct? As you count models under T/B's and if its not a model, it can't be hit. so just be consistent in the rules.

Maybe you missed it, so I will leave this here:

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry" (3)

What is the unit type of the quad gun?

You need to account for Page 3 as well as page 2.

It is not a model. It is terrain that has a specific allowance to be attacked with shooting or in CC.

So, if you run your tank into it, it would end up placed neatly on top of the gun, which remains intact?

Seems legit, lol.

But then, GW rules are like that...

parking a landraider on top of it is a good way to prevent it from firing interceptor shots

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 2 first line, is it a citadel model? Yep, is it a miniature used in 40k? yep. It is then given permission to be referred to as a model in the rules that follow. that permission is never revoked.

Incorrect.

and the part you keep skipping over "each model has it's own characteristics profile" and the gun emplacement has a profile.

If it's not a model you can shoot it, you just can't hit it with template or blasts correct? As you count models under T/B's and if its not a model, it can't be hit. so just be consistent in the rules.

Maybe you missed it, so I will leave this here:

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry" (3)

What is the unit type of the quad gun?

You need to account for Page 3 as well as page 2.

It is not a model. It is terrain that has a specific allowance to be attacked with shooting or in CC.

you can shoot at it with a blast weapon, but if you think the blast weapon causes a hit you have to concede that the quad gun is "a unit" and "a model" because "the unit suffers one hit for each model" Or just admit that not being a model makes them immune to blast weapons. As we see quad guns are models per pg 2, and pg 3 does not deny the 'model' status for not meeting that criteria. Where's the denial?

Templates "any model" under the template are hit. if it's not a model it's immune to templates as well

If a quad gun is not a model, than by your own criteria vehicles are not models either.

do they have a characteristic profile? quad, yes. vehicles, no
do they have unit types from pg 44? quad no, vehicles no.

vehicles have rules for how to have blasts & templates used against them, gun emplacements do not.

Yet I'm sure you'll falsely equate vehicle types and vehicle characteristics to unit types and a characteristic profile with no rule support what so ever.

so if you stick with a quad gun is not a model, then you should also commit to they can't be hit with templates, and vehicles are also not models. anything else and you're just making up your own house rules.

pg 2 allows everything to be referred to as a model and pg 3 never revokes that statues. Ergo gun emplacements, buildings and vehicles are models.

sirlynchmob wrote:
do they have a characteristic profile? quad, yes. vehicles, no

Page 70 would disagree with the underlined.

do they have unit types from pg 44? quad no, vehicles no.

Page 44 disagrees with the underlined as well.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
do they have a characteristic profile? quad, yes. vehicles, no

Page 70 would disagree with the underlined.

do they have unit types from pg 44? quad no, vehicles no.

Page 44 disagrees with the underlined as well.

You mean pg 72 "their characteristics are different" ie they don't have a characteristic profile, they have a vehicle profile which is not listed on pg 2. Also something the quad gun definitely has.

and pg 44 "vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section" ie they don't have a unit type from pg 44 as pg 3 requires for models (from your camp)

ie vehicles share nothing in common with the pg 2&3 requirements.

Odd, both those pages support fully the claim I just made that if a quad gun is not a model, than vehicles are also not models.

oh and edit, and even when we get to pg 72, they do not have a unit type, they get vehicles types.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
do they have a characteristic profile? quad, yes. vehicles, no

Page 70 would disagree with the underlined.

do they have unit types from pg 44? quad no, vehicles no.

Page 44 disagrees with the underlined as well.

You mean pg 72 "their characteristics are different" ie they don't have a characteristic profile, they have a vehicle profile which is not listed on pg 2. Also something the quad gun definitely has.

and pg 44 "vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section" ie they don't have a unit type from pg 44 as pg 3 requires for models (from your camp)

ie vehicles share nothing in common with the pg 2&3 requirements.

Odd, both those pages support fully the claim I just made that if a quad gun is not a model, than vehicles are also not models.

You're confusing "profile" with "characteristics"
A profile contains characteristics.
All models have a profile. Vehicles included. Only the characteristics are different.
Vehicles have a unit type. There's a large section covering vehicle unit types.

BRB: Page 3. Every model has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. In addition to its characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type, which we discuss in more depth on page 44. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (page 70).

BRB: Page 44. Unit Types - Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70).
Codex SM: Page 178 (Stormraven Gunship). Unit Type Vehicle (Flyer, Hover, Transport)
Codex IG: Page 52 (Ordnance Battery). Unit Type Vehicle (tank, open-topped)
Codex Orks: Page 103 (Looted Wagon). Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Open-topped)

So lets see, Vehicles have a characteristics profile, and they have a unit type (I was even kind enough to use a codex from 3 different editions, all of which are the most up to date, and strangely enough, all 3 mention Unit Type for vehicles).

Gun Emplacements have a Characteristics profile but no Unit Type.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
do they have a characteristic profile? quad, yes. vehicles, no

Page 70 would disagree with the underlined.

do they have unit types from pg 44? quad no, vehicles no.

Page 44 disagrees with the underlined as well.

You mean pg 72 "their characteristics are different" ie they don't have a characteristic profile, they have a vehicle profile which is not listed on pg 2. Also something the quad gun definitely has.

and pg 44 "vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section" ie they don't have a unit type from pg 44 as pg 3 requires for models (from your camp)

ie vehicles share nothing in common with the pg 2&3 requirements.

Odd, both those pages support fully the claim I just made that if a quad gun is not a model, than vehicles are also not models.

You're confusing "profile" with "characteristics"
A profile contains characteristics.
All models have a profile. Vehicles included. Only the characteristics are different.
Vehicles have a unit type. There's a large section covering vehicle unit types.

No I'm not, "each model has it's own characteristic profile" pg 2. clearly and specifically "characteristic profile" vehicles have a vehicle profile which is not a characteristic profile. 40k uses 9 different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.
"their characteristics are different" I think you have them confused.

vehicle profile example
Name, BS, F, S, R, HP

characteristic profile example which the quad gun has.
WS, BS, s, t, w, i, a, ld, sv

your requirement quoted needing a unit type on found on pg 44. vehicle types are not listed on pg 44.

"In additon to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry"

Why are you allowing for vehicles to be counted as a model, yet the quad gun which meets more of your criteria to be excluded?

since you didn't refute quad guns from being immune to blast and templates, I'll take that to mean you agree with that statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
BRB: Page 3. Every model has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. In addition to its characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type, which we discuss in more depth on page 44. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section (page 70).

BRB: Page 44. Unit Types - Vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on (see page 70).
Codex SM: Page 178 (Stormraven Gunship). Unit Type Vehicle (Flyer, Hover, Transport)
Codex IG: Page 52 (Ordnance Battery). Unit Type Vehicle (tank, open-topped)
Codex Orks: Page 103 (Looted Wagon). Unit Type Vehicle (Tank, Open-topped)

So lets see, Vehicles have a characteristics profile, and they have a unit type (I was even kind enough to use a codex from 3 different editions, all of which are the most up to date, and strangely enough, all 3 mention Unit Type for vehicles).

Gun Emplacements have a Characteristics profile but no Unit Type.

Even if I agree with vehicle type being equal to unit type. It most definitely does not have a characteristic profile. see response to grendel083

sirlynchmob wrote:
It most definitely does not have a characteristic profile.

Characteristic Profiles wrote:Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics

They all have a Profile.
Profile lists Characteristics.

Vehicle Characteristics wrote:However, their characteristics are different. Shown here is one example of a vehicle’s profile:

Vehicles, like all models, have a profile. They even give an example.
In the vehicles profile are characteristics. They are different from other units, but they are there.

Vehicle Characteristics wrote:vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section.

Doesn't get much clearer than this.

 grendel083 wrote:

Characteristic Profiles wrote:Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics

They all have a Profile.
Profile lists Characteristics.

Vehicles wrote:However, their characteristics are different. Shown here is one example of a vehicle’s profile:

Vehicles, like all models, have a profile. They even give an example.
In the vehicles profile are characteristics. They are different from other units, but they are there.

Vehicle Characteristics wrote:vehicles have many different rules and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section.

Doesn't get much clearer than this.

Are you really saying that "different" now means equal to? or the exactly the same as?
40k uses 9 different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.

if they don't have the 9, then they're not a model.
the quad gun has those 9 and therefore is a model.
or since claim that vehicles have characteristics like all models they're limited to the scale of 0 to 10?

see you're picking and choosing how you define a model solely for the purpose of excluding gun emplacements. When gun emplacements are defined as models and that permission is never removed for not having a unit type. But I'm glad you agree that they are immune to blasts & templates, so can I get you to state it for the record?

first 2 paragraphs on pg 2 allow for and give permission for quad guns to be models, cite the denial. odd,I think you've used this argument somewhere else.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Are you really saying that "different" now means equal to? or the exactly the same as?

No, I'm saying it means different.
You're saying "different" means "does not exist".

40k uses 9 different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.

No, it uses more than that.

if they don't have the 9, then they're not a model.

Not true, and no rule says that. It must have a profile, it must have characteristics. No rule says WHAT characterisitcs it must have. Can you show anywhere that says a characteric profile has THOSE 9 and none other? Direct quote of this rule please.

the quad gun has those 9 and therefore is a model.

The rules also state it MUST have a Unit Type. What is the quad guns Unit Type?

or since claim that vehicles have characteristics like all models they're limited to the scale of 0 to 10?

I claim nothing. The rules say they have characteristics in black and white. Again no rule says a characteristic profile must use those 9 basic stats.

see you're picking and choosing how you define a model solely for the purpose of excluding gun emplacements. When gun emplacements are defined as models and that permission is never removed for not having a unit type. But I'm glad you agree that they are immune to blasts & templates, so can I get you to state it for the record?

The rules define what a model is. Gun Emplacement doesn't fit the description. Gun emplacement rules cover shooting. If you want to argue they can't be hit with a Blast, that's a different argument, and one that has nothing to do with proving they're not models.

first 2 paragraphs on pg 2 allow for and give permission for quad guns to be models, cite the denial. odd,I think you've used this argument somewhere else.

It fails the definition of a model. Tell me it's unit type.

1st rule in the book: the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as models in the rules that follow.

2nd rule: to reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristic profile. ie the 9 stats

specific permission for quad guns to be referred to as models.

now cite the denial. it's already been given permission to be a model and the other important information never revokes model status for not having a unit type.

pg 44 as well "unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile" ie it's not really of any relevance.

It's your denial of these two rule that also drags vehicles down as well. and only models can be hit with blasts, if you allow blasts to hit "terrain" then you are using them as models while claiming they're not.

the quad gun has a characteristic profile as outlined on pg 2 and 3, vehicles do not, vehicles use something different.

sirlynchmob wrote:
1st rule in the book: the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as models in the rules that follow.

They are models. A tree is a model. GW sell a hill, this is also a model.
But not the game defined term of model. The rules are quite clear on that. Profile and Unit Type. Models MUST have them.

2nd rule: to reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristic profile. ie the 9 stats

The rules do not say the underlined. There are 9 basic stats, there are also more.
Please post a rule showing a profile can only include those 9 and nothing else.

specific permission for quad guns to be referred to as models.

There is not. It lacks a unit type.

now cite the denial. it's already been given permission to be a model and the other important information never revokes model status for not having a unit type.

It's been given permisison to be a miniature. It's lack of unit type means it was never classed as a model. But if you wish to continue down that road, how about basic over specific? The more specific rule states it needs a unit type. AGain, what unit type is a Gun Emplacement?

pg 44 as well "unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile" ie it's not really of any relevance.

The underlined is a totally false assumption. How do you go from "extention" to "Not relevent"? A fuel line is an extension of a cars fuel reserve. Not relevent? Won't work without it.

the quad gun has a characteristic profile as outlined on pg 2 and 3, vehicles do not, vehicles use something different.

The rules outrigt say vehicles have a characteristic profile. I quoted it. There are two seperate sections called "Vehicle characteristics"! There characterisitics are different to infantry, why do you think that suddenly means they don't exist?

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
1st rule in the book: the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as models in the rules that follow.

They are models. A tree is a model. GW sell a hill, this is also a model.
But not the game defined term of model. The rules are quite clear on that. Profile and Unit Type. Models MUST have them.

Do you have any rules to support your idea of two different types of models? your house rule may be clear on it, but that is not what the rule says.

how does "referring to them as models in the rules that follow", not a game defined term as a model. you have a quad gun and you refer to it as a model in the rules. as in "the type of weapon on the gun depends on the model..."
can you cite the denial yet?
or if you just want to focus on unit types, you can also state RAW that because it has a characteristic profile, by extension it does have a unit type. In addition to the characteristic profile it has, it will have a unit type.
it has a characteristic profile, ergo permission for it to have a unit type, even if it ends up being unit type: none or unknown or gun emplacement.

a characteristic profile is clearly a defined term as seen on pg 3, and also states every model has one. all but one of the characteristics range from 0 to 10.

vehicles have vehicle characteristics and vehicle types, I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying that they are not characteristic profiles as pg 3 defines them. you agree their different, yet ignore this difference to equate them to models. Once you start playing with definitions with no rule support you end up with all sorts of odd issues, like quad guns being immune to blasts as their is "no model" under the template to hit. you can shoot at it all you want, you just can't hit it with blasts. or only models with wounds are models and nothing else.

This is that consistence I keep bringing up. As your definition changes for each situation I can safely assume it's wrong. And as we can see from pg 2 that I claim vehicles, squishy woundy things, and fortifications are in fact models as the rules outright states they are.

I was going to correct each section again, but it's a wasted effort. No rule anywhere says a profile can only ever comprise of the 9 basic stats.

From the rule "Other Important Information" under "Characteristic Profiles"
"In addition to it's characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type..."

The rules state in balck and white that vehicles have a characteristic profile. And there's a large section on vehicle unit types. So yes, vehicles are models.

Now what is the unit type of a Gun Emplacement. Page number please.

 grendel083 wrote:
I was going to correct each section again, but it's a wasted effort. No rule anywhere says a profile can only ever comprise of the 9 basic stats.

From the rule "Other Important Information" under "Characteristic Profiles"
"In addition to it's characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type..."

The rules state in balck and white that vehicles have a characteristic profile. And there's a large section on vehicle unit types. So yes, vehicles are models.

Now what is the unit type of a Gun Emplacement. Page number please.

it's already a model for the rules. the gun emplacement already calls itself a model.

cite the denial.

why do you ignore warhammer uses 9 different characteristics to describe models, yet think unit type means anything significant here. look at the big bold correct phrase of "CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES" which every model has yet vehicles do not

permission has been granted for the quad gun to be a model and you have no rules to claim otherwise, and no rules for your false dichotomy of models. it's your house rule at least be consistent don't do this different yet equal stuff. if there are models & non models then vehicles and buildings/gun emplacements should go there.

sirlynchmob wrote:
it's already a model for the rules. the gun emplacement already calls itself a model.

cite the denial.

So you're ignoring the rule?
Is a tree (citadel miniature) a model? As defined by the game? Or one of GW's hills?
They have a Profile and Unit Type?

You're claiming that every citadel miniature is a model, as in the game defined term model. Citadel makes details gaming table sections. Is the gaming table now to be considered a model? Can I shoot it?

why do you ignore warhammer uses 9 different characteristics to describe models, yet think unit type means anything significant here. look at the big bold correct phrase of "CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES" which every model has yet vehicles do not

I've not once ignored the 9 basic stats.
Now I believe you're about to supply a rules quote, showing that a profile MUST have these 9 and NO OTHER? Page please.
There are 2 sections called "Vehicle Characteristics" as well as several places describing the characteristic profile of a vehicle. Yet you still ignore them?
Vehicles have a characteristic profile.
Again, what rule says a profile MUST have those 9 basic stats and NO OTHER?

permission has been granted for the quad gun to be a model and you have no rules to claim otherwise, and no rules for your false dichotomy of models. it's your house rule at least be consistent don't do this different yet equal stuff. if there are models & non models then vehicles and buildings/gun emplacements should go there.

House rule? I'll quote it again:
"In addition to it's characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type..."
How is that a house rule?
Please give the unit type of a Gun Emplacement, with page number, along with the other rule you're about to quote.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
it's already a model for the rules. the gun emplacement already calls itself a model.

cite the denial.

So you're ignoring the rule? nope
Is a tree (citadel miniature) a model? As defined by the game? Or one of GW's hills? yep
They have a Profile and Unit Type? nope, but the quad gun does have a chacteristic profile

why do you ignore warhammer uses 9 different characteristics to describe models, yet think unit type means anything significant here. look at the big bold correct phrase of "CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES" which every model has yet vehicles do not

I've not once ignored the 9 basic stats.
Now I believe you're about to supply a rules quote, showing that a profile MUST have these 9 and NO OTHER? Page please.
There are 2 sections called "Vehicle Characteristics" as well as several places describing the characteristic profile of a vehicle. Yet you still ignore them?
Vehicles have a characteristic profile.
Again, what rule says a profile MUST have those 9 basic stats and NO OTHER?

EVERY MODEL HAS, AND ALL BUT ONE CAN GO FROM 0 TO 10. Vehicles use a totally different vehicle profiles which are not in any way equated to characteristic profiles. their characteristics are different ergo it's not a characteristic profile like the pg 3 example it's a vehicle characteristic.

permission has been granted for the quad gun to be a model and you have no rules to claim otherwise, and no rules for your false dichotomy of models. it's your house rule at least be consistent don't do this different yet equal stuff. if there are models & non models then vehicles and buildings/gun emplacements should go there.

House rule? I'll quote it again:
"In addition to it's characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type..."
How is that a house rule?
Please give the unit type of a Gun Emplacement, with page number, along with the other rule you're about to quote.

You keep claiming you have "models" & "non models" and use them as it's convenient for you, not with any consistency or rules backing. This is how I know you're wrong, now cite the denial. you're so hung up on just the "will have a unit type" You end up ignoring all the other things models are supposed to have thus creating your false dichotomy of models. pg 2 calls it a model, and the gun emplacement calls it a model in the rules that follow, ergo they are models.

You're saying the tabletop is a model, as defined by the game, has a profile and unit type, and can be shot? It's a Cidadel Miniature...

You still won't quote those 2 rules.
Yes I will continue to ask for a unit type. A rule, far more specific to you very very broad basic definition, requires it. You do believe in specific over basic, right? Game breasks down if you don't.

Profile and Unit Type. If they don't have both, they're not a model. I've quoted the rule stating this.

Do you at least now accept that vehicles have a Charateristic Profile and Unit type, and are infact models?