Do Aegis Defense Lines count as units for certain purposes

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.

**Hollismason**

Then by your own admission it most certainly is a "unit" even if not listed. Since it is purchased as part of your army.

**Abandon**

Hollismason wrote:
Then by your own admission it most certainly is a "unit" even if not listed. Since it is purchased as part of your army.

That would be a fallacious assumption. Notice, I did not mention 'purchased as part of an army' as a qualification. Everything I said was defined by the BRB. There is, to my knowledge, no known statement in any of rule books that deems spending points on something defines that thing as a model.

**Hollismason**

Abandon wrote:
Time to back DR here.

A model, as defined by the BRB must have two things going for it. I must have a characteristic profile complete with unit type and must be part of (or the whole of) a unit. Some pieces of terrain have a profile. That does not define them as a model because they are lacking in unit type and an associated unit they belong to. Some pieces of terrain can be targeted by ranged and CC attacks. That does not meet any of the qualifications.

...and yes, vehicles are well defined as models.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." -Page 3, BRB, Forming a unit

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

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44." -Page 3, BRB, Other Important Information

"...unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile..." Page 44, BRB, Unit Types

"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons. Squadrons are treated like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." -Page 77, BRB, Bold text at the top

I think individual models make up a unit even if they are comprised of a total of 1.

Look you can jump through all the semantic loops you want, A bunker you purchased is a Model, something that shoots at you is a Enemy Model, Enemy Models form units.

This is literally argument of semantic discord.

**sirlynchmob**

Abandon wrote:
Time to back DR here.

A model, as defined by the BRB must have two things going for it. I must have a characteristic profile complete with unit type and must be part of (or the whole of) a unit. Some pieces of terrain have a profile. That does not define them as a model because they are lacking in unit type and an associated unit they belong to. Some pieces of terrain can be targeted by ranged and CC attacks. That does not meet any of the qualifications.

...and yes, vehicles are well defined as models.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." -Page 3, BRB, Forming a unit

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

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44." -Page 3, BRB, Other Important Information

"...unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile..." Page 44, BRB, Unit Types

"Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons. Squadrons are treated like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as described below." -Page 77, BRB, Bold text at the top

Why don't you quote the first part? "the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

That's all you need to be a model. This covers infantry, vehicles, buildings, terrain, whatever. all citadel models used to play the game are models.

the other part of pg 44 you missed. "so far we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry,"

all you did is quote the requirements for infantry to be formed into a unit and apply it to everything else.

squadrons are treated like units, just like buildings function like any other unit. but neither have a unit type. one has a vehicle type and one has a terrain type.

Then we have quad guns.

so if a quad gun is not a model, then do you remove it from play when it is reduced to 0 wounds?
and the deathray, does it affect the quad gun? or any marker /template that looks down and see's the quad gun.
if it's not a model, they don't get hit, nor removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

What rule tells you, that you can either remove terrain from the table, or modify it after the game starts?

**Hollismason**

Pretty much that.

This isn't Schrodinger's Wargaming , it's a model. It's also purchased by my enemy, that makes it a enemy model.

**DeathReaper**

Hollismason wrote:
Pretty much that.

This isn't Schrodinger's Wargaming , it's a model. It's also purchased by my enemy, that makes it a enemy model.

No, as noted by the rules quote of page 3, if it does not have a unit type it is definitely not a model as 40k defines model...

**Abandon**

Hollismason wrote:

I think individual models make up a unit even if they are comprised of a total of 1.

Look you can jump through all the semantic loops you want, A bunker you purchased is a Model, something that shoots at you is a Enemy Model, Enemy Models form units.

This is literally argument of semantic discord.

Yes, refusing to recognize and properly apply game specific terms can lead to that. It's one of a host of problems that generally stem from individuals who obstinately refuse to stop utilizing real world concepts, ideas and definitions in 40k rules.

**Hollismason**

Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

**DeathReaper**

Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

**Abandon**

sirlynchmob wrote:

Why don't you quote the first part? "the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

That's all you need to be a model. This covers infantry, vehicles, buildings, terrain, whatever. all citadel models used to play the game are models.

This is incorrect. You left out further definition in context to that quote.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 ate referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile."

Add in all the previously listed definitions as well for a full picture and the rules definitively do not define terrain pieces as models. As that has been proven several time already you have in fact only successfully proven they are not miniatures either.

**sirlynchmob**

Abandon wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

Why don't you quote the first part? "the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

That's all you need to be a model. This covers infantry, vehicles, buildings, terrain, whatever. all citadel models used to play the game are models.

This is incorrect. You left out further definition in context to that quote.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 ate referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile."

Add in all the previously listed definitions as well for a full picture and the rules definitively do not define terrain pieces as models. As that has been proven several time already you have in fact only successfully proven they are not miniatures either.

LOL

and you missed some questions:

so if a quad gun is not a model, then do you remove it from play when it is reduced to 0 wounds?
and the deathray, does it affect the quad gun? or any marker /template that looks down and see's the quad gun.
if it's not a model, they don't get hit, nor removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

**Abandon**

What happens when a piece of terrain reaches zero wounds? Well if you don't remove it your opponent gives you the same look he did when you moved you models inside the hill and called WMS.

Finding GW did not dot all their i's and cross all there t's is nothing new.

**sirlynchmob**

Abandon wrote:
What happens when a piece of terrain reaches zero wounds? Well if you don't remove it your opponent gives you the same look he did when you moved you models inside the hill and called WMS.

Finding GW did not dot all their i's and cross all there t's is nothing new.

Or, the use of the word model throughout the book means the dictionary use of the word. You're using the rules for 'infantry model' to excluding it from all usages of the word model. I agree it's not a infantry model, but it is a model.

and as the quad gun is a miniature and a model, you can remove it at 0 wounds.

it's RAW and less messy.

I've also never claimed WMS allows for levitation or for hiding inside solid objects.

That is the look I give people who keep using this "not a model" argument, while treating like a model so it can be hit with blasts, or removed from play. if you're going to claim it's not a model, then own up to it and follow it through. Because if your so sure that RAW a quad gun is not a model, then why not just state RAW even at 0 wounds, nothing tell you to remove it from play, nor to stop using it. Then follow it up with a HIWPI if necessary.

Because Finding GW did not dot all their i's and cross all there t's is nothing new, can very well mean the intent of the word 'model' has never been just for infantry but the common dictionary usage.

**Hollismason**

DeathReaper wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

Again your stating my case, Aegis Defense Lines have characteristics. Also the second sentence is an example giving "such as.." is an example it's not the only two types.

Sorry but you can argue all you like but a Aegis Defense Line is a enemy model , now whether it is a "unit" is unclear and I will agree on that point. But it is most certainly a model.

**coredump**

p. 2-3
"Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawnedDaemons.To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
Warhammer 40,000 uses nine different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.
Every modelin Warhammer 40.000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.
In addition toitscharacteristics profile, each model will have aunit type, such as Infantry orCavalry "

Please explain how an ADL meets this definition.....

**rigeld2**

Hollismason wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

Again your stating my case, Aegis Defense Lines have characteristics. Also the second sentence is an example giving "such as.." is an example it's not the only two types.

Sorry but you can argue all you like but a Aegis Defense Line is a enemy model , now whether it is a "unit" is unclear and I will agree on that point. But it is most certainly a model.

In addition to its characteristics profile, a model will have a unit type.
What is the unit type of an ADL? Citation requires - as you've asserted multiple times it's a model, it should be trivial to point this out.

**DeathReaper**

Hollismason wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Everything on the board is a model. You're just being dense, seriously. How can you not even remotely think that.

You are coming up with some sort of ephemeral concepts because you can't either understand what we are saying or you refuse to.

Incorrect, because as per the 40k Definition "Models" have a characteristics profile. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3)

and "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

Everything on the board is not a model is not a model as 40k defines because it does not have a " profile that lists the values of its characteristics" or a unit type...

Again your stating my case, Aegis Defense Lines have characteristics. Also the second sentence is an example giving "such as.." is an example it's not the only two types.

Sorry but you can argue all you like but a Aegis Defense Line is a enemy model , now whether it is a "unit" is unclear and I will agree on that point. But it is most certainly a model.

ADL's do have characteristics, but they lack a unit type, and we know, if it is a model, that "In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44"(3)

What is the ADL's unit type? it must have one if it is a model because we know that "each model will have a unit type"...

If it does not have a unit type it is not a 'model'

**Kommissar Kel**

Hollismason wrote:
By that logic then Death Ray or anything that draws a line and passes over models does not affect them.

I am going to assume this is directed at me.

The building rules(found in Terrain) allow for shooting at and assaulting some buildings like they are vehicles. Since we treat buildings as vehicles for the purposes of attacks we logically conclude(and generally HIWPI) that death rays can hit the occupied(or Claimed if using Stronghold Assault) buildings. They never even hit unoccupied(or unclaimed) buildings for exactly the same reasons(they are pure terrain and have no allowances for being attacked). This takes care of the occupy-able buildings.

Then we move further through the BRB to Gum emplacements. It is simply allowed to be shot at and attacked in close combat. This is a special rule inherent to these pieces of terrain; we again have Collectively House-ruled/HIWPI that Death rays can hit them because of this allowance.

Now on to your actual statement: Yes that is exactly correct; Death Ray and similar attack technically cannot hit Buildings and gun emplacements. On top of that; of course they cannot hit or effect the Aegis defense line in any way.

Which brings me to the refute of your further claims in this thread: If Fortifications are models as you claim, what does the death ray do to an Aegis Defense Line(or barricades and walls purchased for a bastion in the Stronghold Assault book)? Nothing, Nothing because they are not Models.

**BlackTalos**

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Then we move further through the BRB to Gun emplacements. It is simply allowed to be shot at and attacked in close combat. This is a special rule inherent to these pieces of terrain; we again have Collectively House-ruled/HIWPI that Death rays can hit them because of this allowance.

This.

Gun emplacements can be targeted due to Emplacement rules. When you buy a Quad gun for an aegis, you buy an emplacement.
The Aegis line is never a model.
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

**rigeld2**

BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

No - still not a model because it doesn't have a Unit Type. It just gives permission to do certain things with it.

**BlackTalos**

rigeld2 wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

No - still not a model because it doesn't have a Unit Type. It just gives permission to do certain things with it.

Unit Type: Artillery?

Like the Space Marine Tarantula?
(Ed:Reference:Rules)

**rigeld2**

That'd be great if the rules for the Quad gun said that.

They don't. You're assuming they do. And giving it the Artillery unit type causes issues (because it assumes there's a crew member, for example).

**Kommissar Kel**

BlackTalos wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad gun that goes with it, technically yes. (Has a profile and therefore counts as a model - Gun Emplacement)

No - still not a model because it doesn't have a Unit Type. It just gives permission to do certain things with it.

Unit Type: Artillery?

Like the Space Marine Tarantula?
(Ed:Reference:Rules)

If it was unit type artillery it would be removed from the table the very second it is deployed(No crew and no special rule allowing it to remain crewless like the tarantula).

What it is, is Terrain type: Battlefield debris(Gun emplacement) and that does not make it a model.

**grendel083**

If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

**Happyjew**

If the Quad-gun was a model would it not immediately be removed as a casualty?

After all per page 3, "-" is the same as "0". A model with 0 Wounds, Toughness, or Strength are immediately removed. Gun Emplacement has "-" Strength.

Of course I guess this means that Artillery guns and Eldar Weapon Platforms would also immediately be removed.

**nosferatu1001**

I though it was only removed if it *reaches* 0 in those stats; starting at 0 isnt counted in this.

**Happyjew**

Hmmm, good point. Objection withdrawn.

**sirlynchmob**

grendel083 wrote:
If the Quad Gun was a model, it wouldn't need a rule that allows you to shoot and assault it (since you can already do this).
It would also give up First Blood, and could be pinned, tank shocked etc...

they have a faq and strong hold assault says they don't give up first blood, nor count as victory points, nor for determining if you're wiped out.

They did need this faq's as they are models so they should count, but the rule was specifically changed to state otherwise.

you can tank shock them. just not buildings as again they have a specific rule saying you can't

RAW they can be pinned, but that is still far less egregious than claiming they can defy gravity and float in the air.

**Kommissar Kel**

FAQs are down right now, but you have it backwards.

An FAQ reminding you that certain things are not counted with gun emplacements does not mean the rest are fair game. It still is not a model and so the rest still do not work.

Unless you can quote the FAQ saying that they can be tank shocked and/or pinned

**nosferatu1001**

Kel - I wouldn't suggest waiting for this, as sirlynch seems to be under the impression that "every model" only means "every infantry model" , despite this being of course false. Evidence has been presented and ignored....