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.

Yay! I can never be tabled again! There's still an ADL on the field!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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....

ya how dare I use the rules which specifically states this to be true.

You have no evidence to the contrary which is blatantly obvious when you include vehicles as models.

if vehicle profile = characteristic profile
and vehicle type = unit type

with no rules what so ever to support this. then it's also fair to say that models with a vehicle or characteristic profile, and a terrain type are also models.

It's RAW and doesn't create absurd situations of floating models, and quad guns that never die unless house ruled to be a model.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
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

Why wouldn't they be pinned?

Even DR who shares your opinion says:

They tell you it can be shot, so it essentially acts like a model for that shooting attack, if it didn't you would never be able to shoot it at all because "All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (13)

a quad gun can be shot with weapons that cause pinning tests.
does the quad gun say it cannot be pinned?
a quad gun is not a vehicle right?
a quad gun can suffer a unsaved wound right?
and it auto fails its leadership as it has no leadership.

and if the quad gun is not a model, then what happens when it reaches 0 wounds? as only models get removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

They can not go to ground as they are terrain, therefore they can not be pinned and the rules for pinning will have no effect on a Gun Emplacement.

Plus, I have proven that vehicle is a unit type. Here is the rule again in case you missed it:

"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)."

Here they cover a series of unit types vehicles require their own section of rules because rules for vehicle units are distinct enough to require their own section later on.

Also Page 77: "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." (Emphasis mine)

Indisputable proof that vehicles are in fact units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
They can not go to ground as they are terrain, therefore they can not be pinned and the rules for pinning will have no effect on a Gun Emplacement.

Plus, I have proven that vehicle is a unit type. Here is the rule again in case you missed it:

"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)."

Here they cover a series of unit types vehicles require their own section of rules because rules for vehicle units are distinct enough to require their own section later on.

Also Page 77: "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." (Emphasis mine)

Indisputable proof that vehicles are in fact units.

yes a unit, without a unit type. so therefore not a model based on your own criteria.

yet again, vehicles have their own section as they do not have a unit type.

squadrons are treated like units, just like buildings are treated like units.

you yourself admit quad guns are shot like they are a unit, and "you can declare that the UNIT is going to ground" RAW: quad guns can be pinned or choose to go to ground.

Well vehicles do have a unit type, check out the GK Codex Page 93, Stormraven listing. "Unit Type: Vehicle (Fast, Skimmer)

There is further proof that Vehicle is a unit type. Convinced yet?


Also: Quad guns can NOT be pinned or choose to go to ground.

Terrain simply does not have that choice.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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....

ya how dare I use the rules which specifically states this to be true.

You have no evidence to the contrary which is blatantly obvious when you include vehicles as models.

if vehicle profile = characteristic profile
and vehicle type = unit type

with no rules what so ever to support this. then it's also fair to say that models with a vehicle or characteristic profile, and a terrain type are also models.

It's RAW and doesn't create absurd situations of floating models, and quad guns that never die unless house ruled to be a model.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
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

Why wouldn't they be pinned?

Even DR who shares your opinion says:

They tell you it can be shot, so it essentially acts like a model for that shooting attack, if it didn't you would never be able to shoot it at all because "All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." (13)

a quad gun can be shot with weapons that cause pinning tests.
does the quad gun say it cannot be pinned?
a quad gun is not a vehicle right?
a quad gun can suffer a unsaved wound right?
and it auto fails its leadership as it has no leadership.

and if the quad gun is not a model, then what happens when it reaches 0 wounds? as only models get removed for being reduced to 0 wounds.

Quad gun, or gun emplacements, do not have to say they cannot be pinned. Pinning weapons effect units, they are certainly not units; pinning has no effect.

No one really knows what happens to a gun emplacement that is reduced to 0 wounds, it is not a model so is not removed, technically reducing it to 0 wounds has no effect, but the general consensus is that they stop functioning(it is an accepted house rule and general HIWPI as it gives an effect to being reduced to 0 wounds)

You cannot tank shock them to any effect for 2 reasons:
1) they are not models, they are terrain, so unless you and your opponent declare them diificult or impassable the tank just moves over them with no effect to either the vehicle nor the gun emplacement
2) if, IF, they where a model; they are not enemy models, therefore are impassable and you cannot tank shock over them at all

You are really grasping at straws and finding no purchase.

As far as the quote about units shooting at units, the Gun emplacement(and occupied/Claimed building) rules allow for them to be targeted, this is all that is needed and does not make those pieces of terrain "units"; it makes them targetable terrain, terrain that your unit is targeting and without other special rules in place your unit can only select 1 target.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well vehicles do have a unit type, check out the GK Codex Page 93, Stormraven listing. "Unit Type: Vehicle (Fast, Skimmer)

There is further proof that Vehicle is a unit type. Convinced yet?


Also: Quad guns can NOT be pinned or choose to go to ground.

Terrain simply does not have that choice.

check out pg 70, see vehicle type. is that a unit type from pg 44? no

so vehicles can be units, but not models, based on your criteria. If you allow vehicles, then buildings & quad guns fit the same criteria for being a model.

your argument is for quad guns goes:

they're not models.
you shoot them like one and a unit and you've house ruled it to be a model so you can either remove it from play at 0 wounds or leave it there non functioning.
but then they're no longer models nor units again so you can't pin them.

Then you're fine with levitating buildings, but pinning a quad gun just goes to far?

doesn't that sound really odd to you? you switch positions twice in one basic shooting sequence. This is why I'm unconvinced. you pick and choose when to use the words model & unit with these terrain pieces based seemingly on your whim alone.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

^winner...

While I admit i skimmed a few posts on this thread but it looks like to me the core context of a question is "can the OP blow up an ADL using Imotekh's Lightning attack?".


ADLs are defense lines w/o armor value or any stat-line in 6th edition. So how would you even destroy it in normal 40k? (Apoc has formations that remove pieces of terrain but that's outside of the scope here I"m pretty certain).


To my knowledge, you cannot damage an ADL (just the gun emplacement if taken). So what's the question again? Or was the OP just trolling?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

That FAQ simply states fortifications do not count as models on the battlefield. Oh wait .. that's because they aren't 40k "models" and so this FAQ answer is quite correct (as a clarification of the obvious, that Non Models would, obviously, not count as a model on the battlefield at the end of a game turn). It did not change any rule.

Nor did it state "no, because it's not a model"

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nor did it state "no, because it's not a model"

It did not have to.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

Love the FAQ quote that does not say what you said the FAQ says.

Instead you take an FAQ that confirms Fortifications are not models on the table for determining win/game over conditions to somehow claim it says they are models for any other purposes.

There is no logic, reason, or cohesive thought to any of your statements and at least half of them are easily dis-proven outright lies. Good for you.

no, your assuming why they ruled it that way with no proof of any kind.

They faq does not answer one way or the other that they're models.

faq's can and have changed rules in the past all we know for sure is that they didn't want them to count for victory conditions and that is all.

anything else is the result of your imagination.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

I see no mention of first blood there.

You say it's a model (it isn't) so it must give first blood, no?

And please explain how you go about tankshocking a quad gun.

quadguns have a profile. all gun placements do.

 viewfinder wrote:
quadguns have a profile. all gun placements do.

And? It does not have a Unit type.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

Theres no such FAQ
Probably because it wasn't needed being that they're not models.

You mean this FAQ from the BRB 1.5 released in September?

Q: In the Victory Conditions section, it states that if, at the end
of any game turn, a player has no models on the battlefield, his
opponent automatically wins. Are Fortifications purchased as
part of your army counted toward this?(p122)
A: No.

I see no mention of first blood there.

You say it's a model (it isn't) so it must give first blood, no?

And please explain how you go about tankshocking a quad gun.

I also said and stronghold assault ruled it that way. so still no to first blood. Unless we agree to allow it, then when we agree to allow it does that make them models then?

the same way zhadsnark‘ da rippa’ (biker) rams a vehicle.

I've always agreed the rules for fortifications were horribly written. But when you try to add into that mess with "they're not models" it's a even bigger mess, and people end up looking like hypocrites as they change the usage of model every other sentence.

so what happens when a quad gun reaches 0 wounds? you haven't weighed in on this question yet.

That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

It takes quite the bit of convoluted thinking to read into those two things that Fortifications are therefore considered 40k "models" as the rules define.

Unless you decide otherwise = they don't (why .. because non-models don't would be the obvious reason)

First blood - the first unit is worth one victory point .. fortifications do not award victory points <- This does not equate to "Fortifications are models/units but ignore you should them for victory points purposes" in any way, whatsoever. Quite the opposite, it clarifies for you that they are not a unit (and, therefore not a model as defined by the rules), since only units (and objectives) award victory points.

Or, to use the same false logical leap you used earlier; This does not say "Even though they are units/models, ignore them for victory points purposes".

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

It takes quite the bit of convoluted thinking to read into those two things that Fortifications are therefore considered 40k "models" as the rules define.

Unless you decide otherwise = they don't (why .. because non-models don't would be the obvious reason)

First blood - the first unit is worth one victory point .. fortifications do not award victory points <- This does not equate to "Fortifications are models/units but ignore you should them for victory points purposes" in any way, whatsoever. Quite the opposite, it clarifies for you that they are not a unit (and, therefore not a model as defined by the rules), since only units (and objectives) award victory points.

Or, to use the same false logical leap you used earlier; This does not say "Even though they are units/models, ignore them for victory points purposes".

They're models because they're models.

people claim that because they don't meet the description for infantry models then they're not models. That argument being extremely convoluted leads to all sorts of bizarre situations, like levitating buildings and quad guns that never die and a host of other problems these forums are littered with. Then it leads to further lapses of logic where it's claimed, it's not a model, you can shoot it like a model, but they can't g2g because they're not a model. Hypocrisy at it's finest right there.

They rules in stronghold state they don't award victory points as I said, then got called a liar for making up that rule. It was a side argument that was brought up, which has nothing to do with the model or not argument. Because model or not, they don't give up first blood, without the rule they would. We can only assume as to why. It's also just as valid to say GW ruled that way because they are models, they just don't want them to count for victory conditions unless agreed upon.

sirlynchmob wrote:
check out pg 70, see vehicle type. is that a unit type from pg 44? no

Yes, they mention vehicles under the rules for unit types and explain that they are distinct enough from other units to need their own section on page 70...

so vehicles can be units, but not models, based on your criteria. If you allow vehicles, then buildings & quad guns fit the same criteria for being a model.

you are incorrect again. as I have proven vehicles have a unit type in the codex. if they do not have a unit type in the BRB then we look at page 7, see there is a conflict and note that the Codex trumps the rulebook and vehicles actually have the unit type: Vehicle.

your argument is for quad guns goes:

they're not models.
you shoot them like one and a unit and you've house ruled it to be a model so you can either remove it from play at 0 wounds or leave it there non functioning.
but then they're no longer models nor units again so you can't pin them.

Pinning does not matter as the gun does not fire shots, it being pinned has no bearing on the unit firing the gun.

"A unit that has gone to ground cannot move, Run or charge. It can only fire Snap Shots when it wishes to shoot, and can fire Overwatch." (18 Go to ground rules)

This does not have any effect on the gun emplacement because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own.

Then you're fine with levitating buildings, but pinning a quad gun just goes to far?

I do not understand the correlation you are trying to make here.

doesn't that sound really odd to you? you switch positions twice in one basic shooting sequence. This is why I'm unconvinced. you pick and choose when to use the words model & unit with these terrain pieces based seemingly on your whim alone.

You use the rules for units when you are shooting at it because the rules tell you that you can shoot it. the only way to shoot at a gun emplacement is to use the rules in the shooting section. However the Gun Emplacement being pinned means absolutely nothing because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own. Therefore pinning does not have any effect on a gun emplacement.

This is all consistent with the RAW.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That FAQ changed no rules, it makes a statement that follows the existing rules. Nothing more.

Stronghold assault makes no such ruling, you can say this all you want but it is still a boldface lie. Unless you can provide the Quote of the rule or the FAQ that no-one else can read right now(unless they have downloaded it) because GWs website is still down.

Zhadsnark da rippa can ram a vehicle because he has a special rule that allows him to. Fortifications are terrain, some have rules that allow you to attack them , this is a special rule that does not change them into something other than terrain anymore than Zhadsnark's special rule allowing him to ram makes him a tank(which it does not).

I have weighed in on what happens when a Gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds, but I will reiterate it: By the rules: nothing, nothing at all happens when the gun emplacement reaches 0 wounds. As most people play it: the gun stops working.

pg 15 victory conditions
"unless you and your opponent decide otherwise, do not include fortifications for the purpose of awarding victory points or determining when an opposing side is 'wiped out'.

first blood brb pg 122 the first unit, of any kind to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 victory point.

fortifications do not award victory points.

maybe you shouldn't be arguing RAW if you don't have the rules.

Feel free to apologize now.

It takes quite the bit of convoluted thinking to read into those two things that Fortifications are therefore considered 40k "models" as the rules define.

Unless you decide otherwise = they don't (why .. because non-models don't would be the obvious reason)

First blood - the first unit is worth one victory point .. fortifications do not award victory points <- This does not equate to "Fortifications are models/units but ignore you should them for victory points purposes" in any way, whatsoever. Quite the opposite, it clarifies for you that they are not a unit (and, therefore not a model as defined by the rules), since only units (and objectives) award victory points.

Or, to use the same false logical leap you used earlier; This does not say "Even though they are units/models, ignore them for victory points purposes".

They're models because they're models.

Not according to the rules definition of models. The English definition, absolutely. However that has no bearing on the rules.

people claim that because they don't meet the description for infantry models then they're not models.

This is a false characterisation of what those who are using the actual rules are stating. But you know this.

That argument being extremely convoluted leads to all sorts of bizarre situations, like levitating buildings and quad guns that never die and a host of other problems these forums are littered with. Then it leads to further lapses of logic where it's claimed, it's not a model, you can shoot it like a model, but they can't g2g because they're not a model. Hypocrisy at it's finest right there.

How does not being a model, for rules purposes, allow the absurd fallacy of levitating buildings? They are terrain. where do you place terrain? (hint, it's not levitating and the rules do state how you place terrain). Sure, I'll give you the quad gun (or any gun emplacement) not having a clear rule for what to do with it when it is reduced to 0 wounds. However, if that is the crux of your argument, acknowledging yourself that the fortification rules are "a mess" (which I don't entirely agree with either, they simply have a few issues that can easily be figured out with some sense), it is a very weak argument to use to claim that fortifications and gun emplacements are in fact models as far as the rules are concerned (and therefore units).

You can shoot a fortification or gun emplacement, treating it like a unit, only under specific circumstances, explicitly stated and outlined in the rules for fortifications.
If, however, fortifications and emplacements/emplaced guns are simply considered to be models (as defined by the rules),and therefore also units, these allowances to shoot at them would not be required as we already have in the rules allowance to shoot and assault units. Instead, restrictions would be required to avoid the mess it would otherwise create if they were simply units/models.

One argument I haven't seen mentioned here is that the ADL is considered a Defense Line. Defense Lines in the BRB (pg 104) are considered battlefield debris and thus difficult terrain. It can't be destroyed (outside of Apoc) and it just exists. It doesn't count towards model count for reserves or being tabled; it's terrain.

So what is the argument everyone is having at this point?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
check out pg 70, see vehicle type. is that a unit type from pg 44? no

Yes, they mention vehicles under the rules for unit types and explain that they are distinct enough from other units to need their own section on page 70...

so vehicles can be units, but not models, based on your criteria. If you allow vehicles, then buildings & quad guns fit the same criteria for being a model.

you are incorrect again. as I have proven vehicles have a unit type in the codex. if they do not have a unit type in the BRB then we look at page 7, see there is a conflict and note that the Codex trumps the rulebook and vehicles actually have the unit type: Vehicle.

your argument is for quad guns goes:

they're not models.
you shoot them like one and a unit and you've house ruled it to be a model so you can either remove it from play at 0 wounds or leave it there non functioning.
but then they're no longer models nor units again so you can't pin them.

Pinning does not matter as the gun does not fire shots, it being pinned has no bearing on the unit firing the gun.

"A unit that has gone to ground cannot move, Run or charge. It can only fire Snap Shots when it wishes to shoot, and can fire Overwatch." (18 Go to ground rules)

This does not have any effect on the gun emplacement because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own.

Then you're fine with levitating buildings, but pinning a quad gun just goes to far?

I do not understand the correlation you are trying to make here.

doesn't that sound really odd to you? you switch positions twice in one basic shooting sequence. This is why I'm unconvinced. you pick and choose when to use the words model & unit with these terrain pieces based seemingly on your whim alone.

You use the rules for units when you are shooting at it because the rules tell you that you can shoot it. the only way to shoot at a gun emplacement is to use the rules in the shooting section. However the Gun Emplacement being pinned means absolutely nothing because it can not move or run, and it can not shoot on its own. Therefore pinning does not have any effect on a gun emplacement.

This is all consistent with the RAW.

Thanks for the assist on pinning, that was really well written.

so if it's a model pinning has no effect and it doesn't give out first blood.
if it's not a model pinning has no effect and it doesn't give out first blood.

Same out come regardless of how you look at it.

if you stack two bastions and blow up the bottom one you claim the top one just floats there because it's not a model. If how you think the rules work leads to breaking the laws of gravity then it's probably not right. Where if it is a model the top bastion would just get removed from play as well. It was from the stacking thread, but it goes into the model debate.

But hopefully we'll see some new faq's shortly so lets call it a draw for now and continue on in the next thread. Without FAQ's we should see a new 'model' question by saturday

sirlynchmob wrote:
if you stack two bastions and blow up the bottom one you claim the top one just floats there because it's not a model.

Why would it float there, you do not remove the bastion when you blow up the fortification.

If how you think the rules work leads to breaking the laws of gravity then it's probably not right.

Well it does not lead to breaking the laws of gravity, so all is well.

Where if it is a model the top bastion would just get removed from play as well. It was from the stacking thread, but it goes into the model debate.

Well since you do not remove fortifications that get destroyed, there is no reason to remove the bottom bastion, and as such the top bastion (If this is even possible) would not be floating. It would still be stacked on the, now destroyed, bottom bastion.

But hopefully we'll see some new faq's shortly

This I can agree with. I would love for them to fix the gaping holes in the rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:


if you stack two bastions and blow up the bottom one you claim the top one just floats there because it's not a model. If how you think the rules work leads to breaking the laws of gravity then it's probably not right. Where if it is a model the top bastion would just get removed from play as well. It was from the stacking thread, but it goes into the model debate.

So (as I asked for an explaination above) you're using an impossible situation (if we're playing by the rules, that is) to create a defense of your position on terrain (fortifications and gun emplacements) being models/units.
As DR explains above, you do not have any rule permitting you to remove the fortification from the table when it is destroyed, it merely becomes impassible terrain (assuming you can, actually, place a fortification on top of another fortification, which I do not believe works imo), so there is no situation where you end up with a levitating fortification.