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.

That is normal for this site, academical arguments will form from the simplest of questions.

Sirlynchmob,
The real concern I have over all of this has been the complete lack of regard to why all the Count As Rules would even exist if you are correct. Many times I bring that up because that is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Rules where required to access certain basic Rules and to allow other Rules to function in the correct method. That they are focused on Buildings in particular, though other pieces which are destroyed like models also have their own similar clauses, is very telling as those are all the models which we all want to function as Models. Those Count As clauses ensure that specific terrain piece function as if they are Units, some literally granting that right to Buildings. All that work was done well enough by the Authors that it makes an end result so well done that you claim them to be Units all along, then completely ignore that the Rules themselves can't be removed without all those problems returning.

So let us start simple to answer your request:
My models can not see any of your Models behind a Defense Line that you purchased as a Fortification.
I can draw Line of sight the last Citadel Scenery Model that makes up that Defense Line.
I launch a devastating large Blast marker at that, hell let us make it D weapon cause I decided to swing big on this example.
Your Warlord is killed, with him the back bone of a strike that would be needed against that weapon....

Legal Win or not?

JinxDragon wrote:
That is normal for this site, academical arguments will form from the simplest of questions.

Sirlynchmob,
The real concern I have over all of this has been the complete lack of regard to why all the Count As Rules would even exist if you are correct. Many times I bring that up because that is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Rules where required to access certain basic Rules and to allow other Rules to function in the correct method. That they are focused on Buildings in particular, though other pieces which are destroyed like models also have their own similar clauses, is very telling as those are all the models which we all want to function as Models. Those Count As clauses ensure that specific terrain piece function as if they are Units, some literally granting that right to Buildings. All that work was done well enough by the Authors that it makes an end result so well done that you claim them to be Units all along, then completely ignore that the Rules themselves can't be removed without all those problems returning.

So let us start simple to answer your request:
My models can not see any of your Models behind a Defense Line that you purchased as a Fortification.
I can draw Line of sight the last Citadel Scenery Model that makes up that Defense Line.
I launch a devastating large Blast marker at that, hell let us make it D weapon cause I decided to swing big on this example.
Your Warlord is killed, with him the back bone of a strike that would be needed against that weapon....

Legal Win or not?

Legal win

We see from claimed buildings, they are indisputidly units. ADL's are also fortifications and can be included in your army. During deployment, it is a part of your army and they set up with the rest of your units, using the same rule as other models. Note 'other models' and 'rest of your models' It is a model and there are other models, if they weren't already models, you wouldn't need the word 'other' and could just state 'using the same rules for models'. The rest of your units, so it is a unit and deployed with the rest of them.

pg 14 all models on the same side are friendly models, opponents are enemies. the adl is in your army and as a model it can be friendly/enemy, thus the ADL is a friendly unit and can be shot at. Good kill. And if a building isn't first a model, then how can it be frienly or enemy? If it's not first an enemy model than how could it be an enemy unit? Because the only place we are given permission to use friendly/enemy is based on models.

Is a ADL a model? yes, what type does it have? battlefield debris (defnese line) Just because it can't be pidgeoned holed into conforming to infantry models, does not mean it's not a model.

terrain can also be neutral, and if not a model then it must be neutral. without being a model a building or quad gun while a unit in your army is a neutral unit in your army, and thus can not be shot at nor assaulted. model in your army then it is friendly to you and a enemy to your opponent and as such can be a legal target to be shot at, otherwise it can't be an enemy unit and thus unable to be choosen as a target. It also prevents you from shooting your gun emplacement and all the shenanagins that went along with it.

Plus as an added note as buildings are friendly/enemy units, enemy models trying to embark into it must stay one inch away from it while trying to get within 2 inches of the access point.

In the end it boils down to, (A)do you want quad guns & buildings that are immune to all shotting attacks & assaults and that can never die, but probably severly house ruled to treat them as models anyways to prevent this, and so they function identically to models anyways, or (B)treating them like the models they are labeled as.

I'll always choose B as it is RAW and doesn't break every in the shooting phase, every rule in the assault phase, and many other rules.

buildings do not have many counts as rules though. just that they use aspects of the transport vehicle rules, and are treated as vehicles in all circumstances. the only difference between vehices & buildings are the chart you roll on, and they switch sides. IMO GW is just trying to be as clear as possible and take terrain from strictly scenery into scenery units in your army. It seems they're trying to build a narrative of sweeping through a urban city and buildings fall into enemy hands while not upsetting to many customers


the only places I can find where being a model or not could make a difference is with focused witchfires, templates and blast weapons. Since we're on the ADL lets again mention the gun emplacement, We are told they can be shot & assaulted, but they didn't tell us what to count it as. if it's not a model, and it doesn't say to count it as a model, then:
Is it your conclusion that buildings, quad guns, and other non models are immune to blasts, templates and focused witchfires? Then there's the problem with you allocate wounds to models, models make saves, and when models are reduced to 0 wounds they are removed as a casualty.

Stay tuned for the song and dance about even though you are told to 'choose an enemy unit' in the shooting phase and 'nominate the enemy unit' in the assault phase, while claiming you can still shoot at & assault the quad gun and buildings. They'll treat them like models in all regards yet still claim they are not models for some reason not stated.

If the bases of the non-model side is to prevent walls from being shot in the first place, then that is easily house ruled, without the song and dance. If that is the only cringe worthy aspect of how I presented RAW for fortifications, then I'd agree to one house rule to not shoot walls or to better fill the narrative, let's give them an AV and hull points..

JinxDragon wrote:
That is normal for this site, academical arguments will form from the simplest of questions.

Sirlynchmob,
The real concern I have over all of this has been the complete lack of regard to why all the Count As Rules would even exist if you are correct. Many times I bring that up because that is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Rules where required to access certain basic Rules and to allow other Rules to function in the correct method. That they are focused on Buildings in particular, though other pieces which are destroyed like models also have their own similar clauses, is very telling as those are all the models which we all want to function as Models. Those Count As clauses ensure that specific terrain piece function as if they are Units, some literally granting that right to Buildings. All that work was done well enough by the Authors that it makes an end result so well done that you claim them to be Units all along, then completely ignore that the Rules themselves can't be removed without all those problems returning.

So let us start simple to answer your request:
My models can not see any of your Models behind a Defense Line that you purchased as a Fortification.
I can draw Line of sight the last Citadel Scenery Model that makes up that Defense Line.
I launch a devastating large Blast marker at that, hell let us make it D weapon cause I decided to swing big on this example.
Your Warlord is killed, with him the back bone of a strike that would be needed against that weapon....

Legal Win or not?

Not legal.

Blast markers still follow the Out of Sight rules, so the wound pool empties once there are no more models in Line of Sight.

I assumed he meant a barrage blast marker.

DeathReaper,
Consider it to have scattered an inch or barrage, if that makes it better fit the scenario.

Sirlynchmob,
At least you are not being hypocritical though I am curious:
If the Defense Line was placed as just Terrain, does your answer change even though the scenario is identical in every other way?

I will have to point out that the choice you presented is nothing but a straw-man argument, and as such I can not take anything spawned from it seriously. The choice was clearly designed to create the illusion that one side creates all sorts of problems before claiming your own must be correct. Unfortunately for your straw-man, the main body of evidence put forth as to why Buildings are not Models already covers what occurs within those situations. The pages and pages of additional Rules created for these 'Model-like' terrain pieces are more advanced instructions, existing for the sole purpose of giving permission to for these non-Models to access the Shooting or Assault Sequences....

The existence of these Rules has always been a core piece of evidence as to why Buildings are not Models, and I have never received an answer to this question though I ask it a lot:
If the Authors intended for Buildings to already be Models, then why create pages and pages of additional Rules to reach the very same outcome?

JinxDragon wrote:

Sirlynchmob,
At least you are not being hypocritical though I am curious:
If the Defense Line was placed as just Terrain, does your answer change even though the scenario is identical in every other way?

I will have to point out that the choice you presented is nothing but a straw-man argument, and as such I can not take anything spawned from it seriously. The choice was clearly designed make it appear as if the alternative view to your own was designed to create broken scenarios, and therefore your view-point has to be correct by not creating these scenarios. Unfortunately for your straw-man, the main body of evidence put forth as to why Buildings are not Models already covers what actually occurs within those situations. The pages and pages of additional Rules created for these 'Model-like' terrain pieces are more advanced instructions, existing for the sole purpose of giving permission to for these non-Models to access the Shooting or Assault Sequences....

The existence of these Rules has always been a core piece of evidence as to why Buildings are not Models, and I have never received an answer to this question though I ask it a lot:
If the Authors intended for Buildings to already be Models, then why create pages and pages of additional Rules to reach the very same outcome?

Yes the answer changes as it was not bought as your army, then it is just a neutral scenery piece and can not be deliberately shot. And if you scatter onto it, it doesn't cause anything to happen.

it's not pages & pages, it's 3 pages and some pictures for all terrain.

It's not a strawman though, you can't dismiss everything I posted by saying strawman. take some time and think about the questions I ask. take the quad gun emplacement for instance. If it's not a model, and you are just told you can shoot it, what rules do you follow? If a blast marker is over it, how many models are under the marker. The quad gun does not have any count as rules associated with it. Blasts hit models under the marker, is a building a model when being treated as a vehicle? so if a blast marker is over a building does anything happen? and why?

If you are told to choose an enemy unit to target, and your choices are between an enemy ork mob and a gun emplacement, which ones are legal targets and why.

and any answer to your question about why the authors wrote the rules as they did is purely speculation. it's probably just an outdated paradigm of 'infantry, vehicles and terrain' so they keep writing to that narrative even though the lines between them are almost gone.

Again, nice to see your not being hypocritical with the answers but I need to ask:
Ignoring the Rules behind it all for the time being, do you honestly believe that a Unit should be immune based solely on how the wall they are hiding behind came to be placed on the field?
That purchasing the Unit, as in having spent points, should make it less protection then something placed for free?

As for it not being a Straw-man, given the definition of what a Straw-man is in an argument I have to disagree. A Straw-man requires the opponents argument to be modified, recreated or redefined in such a way that it is either easier to argue against it, or the modified conclusion is weaker to support. To make it a true Straw-man it would then have to be followed by a statement that your own viewpoint is therefore correct, as it is not affected by the problems found within the re-definition. As you have put forth that the alternative point of view exists to make Buildings invincible, something never stated by the opposition, and then stated your view is correct because it doesn't cause that outcome... classic Straw-man.

It isn't any questions concerning 'Count As' that are a Straw-Man, it was how you misstated the opposing viewpoint then formulated your 'counter' against the new stance all before you even asked said opposition to clarify how their viewpoint functions within such a scenario....

In order to entertain you further, because it is a problem with non-models in 6th Edition and I want to see if it was re-created in 7th, I will review the Count As scenarios a little closer when I have the book in front of me. My memory issues do not include 'perfect recall of every Rule read' and I like to refresh before I make any serious post on what those Rules contain. I do feel at this time we should ignore Buildings entirely, the fact they have both a statement that they are simply Units and have a good deal of 'Count As' Rules it would be impossible for you to prove the point you are trying to make. The Rules we highlight as needed in order to get around the non-Model status would be doing their job if they make it that difficult to determine if their presence is causing the outcome or not.

Before I do return to "work" I have a follow up question, as the concept that they are just vestigial Rules begs further exploration:
Why where these Rules originally required?
Why is it no longer an issue that has to be addressed?

In previous Editions the Authors also called the Terrain pieces models, by the general use of English, so for these rules to be vestigial they will need to address a clear 'are not Models' clause....

it's hard to counter an argument that is never made though. I've asked previously in this thread and many times in others why stick to the 'non model' argument and where does it lead. starting on pg 2 I asked:

"Or are you guys saying buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker? Immune to focused witchfires? but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds; for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model, and in CC you allocate wounds to the closest model. That ought to help your all building army considerably"

No answer was ever given.

I mention it again on pg 2:

"Not being a model creates quite a few problems:
buildings are still immune to blast weapons because there is no model under the marker. Immune to focused witchfires. but then they'd be just as immune to allocating wounds, for shooting attacks you allocate wounds to the closest model,"

No answer or statement to the contrary was ever given.

None of my questions, have been answered. Please by all means clarify your position and answer my questions.

I would think the continued and specific use of 'citadel scenery models' (it's even in bold print) would seem a clear indication of what the authors intend. I never understood the non model side, nor what they were trying to achieve with it. I don't believe there is such a thing as a non model in 40k. I never played 1-4 and only started at the end of 5th so I can't speak to how the rules were originally. I think the problem started with the game being a 2D game pretending to be a 3D game. Because that is how it felt in 5th. Hence the focus on bases, and terrain rules that never really seem to fit into the game. In 6th if I remember right there were only 2 spots in which terrain was referred to as models, and the gun emplacement had the word model removed for stronghold assault. But now you can't read the terrain rules without a vast and widespread use of the word.

walls & buildings have always worked oddly and against real world applications. in 6th you couldn't ram buildings, now you can. Armies have all sorts of armor piercing weapons that get blocked by walls and barbed wire, without nary the scratch to them. or bombing ruins without the ruins collapsing further. When you ram a unit behind a wall, you'd think the wall would get destroyed as well. The difference between the fortification ADL and a non-fortification ADL, just more clumsy rules from GW. Like how they failed to clarify the psychic phase and really seem to have made a bigger mess of it, terrain always feels like an after thought.

If you don't want to start with buildings, shall we start by discussing the gun emplacements then? As they seem to be a middle ground citadel scenery model.

I did overlook those questions but I do plead the context of your post, one talking about Claimed Buildings and the other an argument that Vehicles are not a Unit Type, as the reason why they where not answered. I was busy focusing on addressing the core of those posts, for the Claimed Building I answered in favor because of all those Count As Rules and for the Unit Type I pointed out many reasons why Vehicles are Unit Types. I could even state that the questions, in context of Buildings of the Claimed type, where answered by the replies I made to all of the post instead of specific questions within.

So simple answer:
All those Count As Rules for Buildings, that you keep stating don't need to exist, make it possible for Buildings to function like Models that it doesn't matter the difference.

It is also why I keep asking to stay away from Buildings, for your own sake, as Those Count As Rules weaken your position greatly. The problems you keep claiming exist are addressed by those Rules, which makes it more likely those Rules exist in order to address those problems and that makes it more likely for there to be something that needs to be addressed. The Gun Encampment gives you one chance but not because it disproves the concept, but because it is so very poorly written. The Rule is simply 'can be shot at...' which doesn't detail to us how we go about resolving the Shooting Sequence against them. It makes it so widely possible interpretations do exist, with access to the whole Sequence being just as possible as the concept that only the basics would be and any Special Rule which singles out models are not effective. That is what makes it a curiosity, it doesn't prove or disprove anything but there is a rich ground for an argument if you are willing to accept that we are discussing fundamentals on how Rules can function more then Written Rules themselves.

However I noticed you went back to Citadel Scenery model and I want to ask you something about that:
Have you noticed how Game workshop, I and yourself single out all these Terrain pieces by calling them Citadel Scenery Models?

We are not calling them Scenery Models or Terrain, though I have done that a few times, but using the entire proper name of Citadel Scenery Models. The use of the first word there is very telling to what the name is referring to, as the company which produces official Game Workshop models matches. This company sells a line of products called simply 'Scenery' and the first paragraph in the Terrain section directly relates to this branch of the model selling company. The context and English use of these words supports the concept that Citadel Scenery Models is self promotion, just like Citadel was mentioned in relation to Warhammer 40k Models back at the start. You continue to repeat that it makes it clear that they intended for these to be models, but they sell a wide range of products which can be called models and have nothing to do with Model as defined in the Rules so it seems irrelevant to me.

So I decided to flick through the number of times model stands out in the Terrain section of the book. Even including Building Rules, which have Count As clauses, I only found four noticeable mentions. Two contained the word Scenery before the word Model, but lacked mention of Citadel, while the other two where for multiple part buildings and one was a 'Count As separate models' Rule. While it is the only other thing you have, it is the exact same 'evidence' that was presented in 6th edition and doesn't carry enough weight to prove intent in face of the Rules.

Now I don't usually bring up the bad writing of Game Workshop, it is why these forums exist because it is that bad, but I want to ponder on something:
Given that you are willing to explain away some inconsistencies as bad Rule Writing, why is it not possible that the use of the word model is the error?
I also wonder just what the possible intention of 'may be Shot at' would mean for resolving shots if the use of the word model is meant to be so clear....





Goddess, are the Rules so 2 dimensional...!

JinxDragon wrote:
The context and English use of these words supports the concept that Citadel Scenery Models is self promotion, just like Citadel was mentioned in relation to Warhammer 40k Models back at the start. You continue to repeat that it makes it clear that they intended for these to be models, but they sell a wide range of products which can be called models and have nothing to do with Model as defined in the Rules so it seems irrelevant to me.

So simple answer:
All those Count As Rules for Buildings, that you keep stating don't need to exist, make it possible for Buildings to function like Models that it doesn't matter the difference.

this is the crux of the disagreement though, you say there are two usages of the word model in the rules, dictionary and rules. That is never actually defined nor stated in the rules, nor would we know which usage is intended when we see the word. it is just as likely as the use of the word model is not in error to allow for blast weapons & focused witchfires to function as intended, blasts could very well only be looking for dictionary models and not rule models.

for those count as rules, it's really just 1 for buildings, they count as vehicles, we are never told they count as models. so claiming they function like models but are not models is illogical. If they are explaining in the building rules how they function like models, then it should be easy to show where and when buildings count as models, what happens when a blast marker is over a building and looking for models. We agree vehicles are models, then when you look underneath the blast marker you see a model, yet if a building is under the marker, if it's not a model, how is it hit? They had a rule in stronghold assault that addressed it, but those rules were asked to be ignored for 7th. would you say it's because buildings are models and that rule was longer needed? I would.

The use of the word model may be unclear, when you go to choose a target or nominate a unit to assault, it must be an enemy unit. but again what is needed to determine if something is enemy or friendly? as I showed in my wall of text it is based on models, without first being a models they can not be friendly or enemy models nor units. This is really another core question that needs to be answered, if a gun emplacement is neither a model, nor unit, how can it be a enemy unit and eligible to be shot when choosing a target? The rule would have to be "maybe shot as a enemy unit" to override the choose a target procedure, unless it was already a model & friendly/enemy unit, then stating it may be shoot is really just a reminder. As you need to pick a enemy unit to shoot if you agree that a gun emplacement can be shot, you are agreeing that is is a enemy unit.

Have you noticed under terrain type that 'citadel scenery model' is in bold? Because as pg 4 tells us, it is highlighting because it's the most important elements of the rule in question. I didn't explain away inconsistent rules as bad writing, I accept they have poorly worded rules that need to be looked at in the greater context of the rule book as a whole. Then when figuring out the meaning, try to break as few other rules as possible and go with the conclusion that breaks the least.

Goddess, are the Rules so 2 dimensional...!

are you mocking me or agreeing with me? It's hard to tell so I'll assume you agree.

If it is so certain that buildings, gun emplacements and other scenery models are not models then why not just state RAW blasts don't affect them because they don't see any models under the marker? Why not just state focused witchfire don't affect them as there is no model in the unit to affect? Why state blasts are looking for rule models when it's just as likely they're looking for dictionary models? One thing is perfectly clear though citadel scenery models are models.

Getting tired of going around in a circle, as we have provided where the definition is located many times. Our view on if something is considered to be a Model it must have the things we are informed Models will have, and the lack of those features means whatever we are looking is not a model as defined by the Rules, regardless of what it is named. When you get down to it, the lack of those features also cause problems within the Rules as we would now have to resolve Shots against things which can not be Wounded. While it is a great House Rule to state things without the characteristic can not be effected, it is one I have seen pushed for a few other problems in other areas, the Rules don't allow us to ignore such things. For a Defence Line to be a model it would need to have a Profile so we can Resolve the Shots against it we clearly have under your interpretation.

I'm just going to short hand the rest:

Buildings and Blast Markers:
We are informed that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type
Buildings have a Profile and a Terrain Type, making them non-Model models
By Counting as Vehicles, Transport in particular, they now have a Unit Type
At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

Gun Emplacements and Blast Markers:
Permission to shoot at a Gun Emplacement has been granted, so permission to use the Shooting Sequence has been granted
Therefore, for the purpose of a shooting sequence when evoking this rule, every reference to model also refers to the Gun Emplacement
Resolving Blast Markers is still part of the sequence, as it modifies the To Hit section
Gun Emplacements therefore function with these Rules, as permission to resolve the shot has been granted

The 2 dimensional thing:
I was agreeing.

JinxDragon wrote:


Buildings and Blast Markers:
We are informed that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type
Buildings have a Profile and a Terrain Type, making them non-Model models
By Counting as Vehicles, Transport in particular, they now have a Unit Type
At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

Gun Emplacements and Blast Markers:
Permission to shoot at a Gun Emplacement has been granted, so permission to use the Shooting Sequence has been granted
Therefore, for the purpose of a shooting sequence when evoking this rule, every reference to model also refers to the Gun Emplacement
Resolving Blast Markers is still part of the sequence, as it modifies the To Hit section
Gun Emplacements therefore function with these Rules, as permission to resolve the shot has been granted

This is where you veer away from RAW and make your leap of faith, Why claim they are not models, just to turn around and treat them as models.

I understand the definition you use for model, you also admit they use the dictionary use of the word throughout the rules. Yet we are given no way of determining how the word is being used. ie blast markers, are they looking for rule models, or dictionary models? and how would you know which one is intended?

you also skipped step 2 of the shooting sequence, pick an enemy unit. so if permission to shoot at the gun emplacement allows it to reference model, it would also have to equate enemy unit to it. Which is odd when you claim they're not models, yet would allow a blast marker that scatters onto them to hit them? You're treating them like a model and choosing to shoot them like any other enemy unit.

If RAW is they are not models, then why allow things that only affect models to affect them?

So simple answer:
All those Count As Rules for Buildings, that you keep stating don't need to exist, make it possible for Buildings to function like Models that it doesn't matter the difference.

This question I'd really like an answer to: In relation to buildings, is there any rule when being a model or not makes a difference? Even if you're just counting them as models.

If it doesn't matter, why keep bringing up the non model status when you treat them as models anyways? Is it just for things like the ADL, or is there some other loop hole I'm not aware of where keeping them as non models is the keystone of the loophole? Because when anyone mentions models in connection to buildings it's always brought up that no 'they are not models' without even a 'but we treat them like one' or any explanation as to why it matters, the remark usually has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I think that is either a left over reaction from an edition where it mattered, or some people are up to something shady. In 6th it was mostly used to keep blessings off from buildings, but now that's RAW.

I am still very curious about where this leap of faith comes from:
Is it because we "assume" that Gun Emplacements being shot at means that we have permission to resolve a Shooting Sequence against them?
It can't be because we Treat Non-Models as if they where Models whenever we encounter one of those 'Count As' Rules that tell us that X is Y, unless you really want to once more go over why count as or treat as Rule even exist. That is something you keep asking at the core of your questions, why we don't just simply call them Models if the rules tell us to treat them as models, and I have tried to answer but it is fast becoming a lost cause. The very fact we need Rules telling us to count X as Y is because X is not Y by default, only in situations where it has access to Count As or Treat As Rules....

So I will go on the offensive then, seeing answering your questions does not change your mind, it just makes you believe you need to word the question in a different way:

Assuming that Citadel Scenery are Models for all Rule purposes consider the following situations:
A player has purchased a Gun Emplacement as part of a Defense Line, taking up a single Force Organization Slot on a Combined Arms Detachment
That Gun Emplacement is laid out so the Gun is encircled by walls, giving protection from all directions
The Enemy decides to take out the gun, generating no less then 5 Wounds
As the Models purchased for a single List Entry, they all are part of a single Unit and Wounds must be allocated to the closest Model first
That Model is a wall section, and as it lacks a profile the Wounds are unable to be resolved against it....
Will the Gun ever get Destroyed?

Each Building has the option of purchasing upgrades, such as barricades and barbed wire
These pieces are represented by Citadel Scenery Models which are deployed alongside but separate to the Building they where purchased for
A Unit is in Melta range to one such barricade, but not to the Building itself
Does benefit from Melta or not?

the leap of faith is where you state that building now have the unit type transport. There are no rules to support that.

As DeathReaper pointed out,
Terrain Pieces are not Models by the definition within the Rules, they lack certain details which are required before something can be called a Model. Buildings are a little bit in the Gray Area of the Rules thanks to the existence of many Rules informing us that they function like Vehicles, but nothing out-right states that this includes the Vehicle Unit Type. I would of liked if they had made a Unit Type Fortification/Building or just gave them Unit Type Vehicle, it would have been a very easy way to get the same result as the dozens of 'counts as' Rules we have instead. Without clear evidence that they have a Unit Type, any claim that they are Models is already on shaky ground.

Let's see what you said previously, why state that claiming they are models is on shakey ground, when you turn around and make that exact claim?

Buildings and Blast Markers:
We are informed that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type
Buildings have a Profile and a Terrain Type, making them non-Model models
By Counting as Vehicles, Transport in particular, they now have a Unit Type
At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

I see you attack them as a vehicle and for all other rules interactions with them you treat them as a vehicle, I see no mention of attacking them as if they were a transport vehicle.

This is what really bugs me about this 'non model' argent. you state that claiming they are models is on shaky ground, while you treat them as models and grant them a unit type to make them a model. Shouldn't the reply to those who state RAW: buildings are models be: while I don't think RAW they are models, I treat them like one in every way imaginable so it doesn't change a single rule and I'll even claim they are one. Saying a building count's as a model, is no different rules wise from actually being a model, (Unless you want to make the case for blast markers not hitting them, or focused witch fires) especially when you see the long list of times they 'count as' models.

Like when I asked this question and you never answered:
This question I'd really like an answer to: In relation to buildings, is there any rule when being a model or not makes a difference? Even if you're just counting them as models.

and the follow up question: If a building or quad gun has a blast scattered over it, would it still be hit? the building was not target by a shooting attack, nor was the quad gun shot at to trigger all the 'count as' clauses.

For the quad gun, do you agree you are treating it like a model & a enemy unit?

Are you really asking if a melta gun can roll an extra d6 to penetrate dangerous terrain? Just because you bought a upgrade to a building does not mean those 2 citadel scenery models are in the same unit, they don't even have the same type. If you have a different conclusion please let us know.

Sirlynchmob,
You still continue without grasping the core element I keep referring too, you keep waving away the very existence of Rules designed to allow us to treat Buildings as if they where something within situations X, Y and Z. You are seeing the effect of these Rules, the end result from all the Rules compiling and interacting, before coming to the wrong conclusion as to what created this result. This is an understandable mistake given the three pages of Rules designed to do just that, Rules you already have admitted to existing when you corrected my flowery use of 'pages on pages,' designed to ensure Buildings will fall under one 'Treat as Transport Vehicle' clause of one type or another for the entirety of the game. Given that makes up 99.5% of the Terrain pieces being shot at, assaulted or otherwise destroyed... more then understandable to see the results of these Rules and assume that they where Models all along, which leads to the logical conclusion that Terrain are Models also.

As for shooting at them like they are transports, have you forgotten this sentence at the very beginning of those three pages:
Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules
I did think about deleting that, because it was more of a underhanded jibe and you brought far more important things to the table this time, but it is the largest 'Counts As' clause in the whole book.

Now that you are asking why I don't simply state they are models, if the end result is the same, it is quite simple: Respect to the pages on pages of Rules that you constantly want to wave away and replace with 'being models is enough.' I also fore-see a lot of problems if we don't have some sort of 'non-model' status for things without a Profile that come from the terrain section of the Rules. Simply because the Rules themselves are not designed to operate against these things, and marking them as 'non-models' being the reason why these Rules don't have to function with them is an easy out. That is one thing you have not grasped in the scenarios I continue to put forth... in a pure Rule as Written environment we do not have permission to ignore Rules which can not execute because lack of detail. If all Scenery Models are Models, simply because the Title of their name contains the word 'models,' then they have to be treated as Models. We would have to resolve a Blast Marker against a Defense Line segment, but can not do so because it lacks a Profile to calculate To Wounds against....

So it is really simple, your explanations require a House Rule so models without Profiles are incapable of triggering any Rule while mine already has Rule Written support for the same.

So let us go back to the scenario situation cause I feel you mistook my scenarios:
I will give you half a point, as I did actually answer your scenario question by stating that the Authors did make a mistake with these Rules. I have complained that the instructions 'can be shot at' are far to vague to inform us much more then access to the shooting sequence itself, and the ability to resolve such. There are questions which can be raised concerning non-targeted attacks that happen to hit against the Gun Emplacement as well, I have never disputed that. I will simply highlight that it is a question that has actually been raised for a few other 'can not be targeted' Situations in the game, so not one unique to Gun Emplacements. So to answer you fully in the simplest way you want, as clearly I waste a hour writing these things for my own amusement:
By strict Rule as Written, a Gun Emplacement is immune to any Blast Marker which does not target it directly because it must be 'shot at' to be counted in the Shooting Sequence.

Now back to what happens if all Scenery Models are no longer non-model entities:
The point of my three scenarios where to highlight that allowing anything without a Profile to be considered a Model opens the door for all sorts of Rule interaction shenanigans. The last two had a common theme that I thought you might pick up on, and that is the requirement that all Models are part of a Unit. If Scenery Models are full Models, instead of it just being part of the name of these items, then they must also form into Units and be part of that Unit for all rule purposes. Then I was using two Rules which trigger based not on individual Models, but on being resolved against a Unit as a whole, to highlight that broken situations can occur in every day games. If one wanted to exploit situations created by the interpenetration that 'Scenery Models are Models,' they can manage to do so within 100% of their games to 100% effectiveness, just by creative placement and Rule application.

In the case of the Defense Line, I was highlighting that Wound Allocation would take any shot away from the intended target and allocate them to something which can never be removed as a Casualty through that method. The lack of a Profile ensures that there is no Wound Characteristic to reduce to 0, and if you create one to fill in the gaps with everything as - or 0 already it achieves the same thing. Without the ability to change 1 to 0, there is no method to trigger the 'remove as Casualty' clause so we have to assume that the Wounds generated against said Model are lost at that point. This would make it very easy to create defense lines which have Gun Encampments 100% immune to destruction from any attack bar close combat. Which gets a little more messy as well, as I can allocate Close Combat Attacks made against the gun to a segment of wall if one of your models is touching....

The Melta situation was a duel question in fact. Not only does it highlight the above's problem again, the Melta Shots could be Allocated to things without a profile, but it was going raise the follow question: How do we deal with Scenery Models that are purchased as upgrades to another Model? I was already undermining a possible 'treat them as the same Model' possible argument, as it would mean that I pop the Building in the above scenario thanks to the Melta Rule triggering and no one taking these upgrades for fear of having a much larger footprint for the enemy to shoot at. It would be impossible to treat them as their own Model in their own right, as it allows allocation trickery to be had, so they would have to exist in some sort of quantum state. Either way they cause problems for resolving simple every day Rules, almost as if the Rules where not written to function with Scenery Models being Models in all regards.

Here is another quick question:
A Strength 8 Beam goes through a Defense Line and hits the Toughness 4 Warlord behind, does he get feel no pain?

Hypothetical second follow up, as the power has been removed, but:
A beam with the effect Remove as Casualty on failed initiative test hits a Defense line before a Model with a Deny the Witch on 4+ Rule
Does the save roll on 4+ or 6+?
How does that resolve against something without a Profile?

See why I simply can see no answer other then 'Things without a profile are non-models, as supported by the definition put forth at the start of a book requiring Models to have a Profile and a Unit Type....'

we are told what aspects they use though, transport capacity and hull points just like transport vehicles have. That has nothing to do with unit type though, nor your house rule to assign buildings a unit type.

I'm not saying you should state in reference to buildings 'they are models' I'm saying it's disingenuous to just claim 'they are not models' without the disclaimer that you are treating them as models for all rules purposes. And if you're treating them as a model for all rules interactions, is it even worth bring up? Because you have yet to show how being a 'non model' to start with changes any outcome of any rule interaction. all the ones I point, you claim buildings are models for those rules.

As you agree that "Strict" RAW the gun emplacement is immune to blasts which don't target it, then by Strict RAW buildings are as well, especially in the case of unclaimed buildings.

All models in your army are formed into units, but that does not equate to them being in the same unit. Does anyone think that the fortress of redemption is one unit or even a squadron? I doubt it. It's 4 separate buildings and as such 4 separate units. The models that were not bought as part of your army are not in units. Even unclaimed buildings are neutral units, and to make this point again: you must pick a enemy unit to shoot at, so you can't shoot at unclaimed buildings.

Let's look at that sanctum imperials model in the middle of the board that we agreed to it's placement as terrain for our battle.
is it a model? yes, it's a citadel scenery model.
was it bought in either of our armies? no, so it isn't required to be in a unit.
is it a friendly or enemy model? no, it's neutral as it's not on either of our sides. (let's keep to 'side' meaning in our army and not do a side of the board tangent)
is it a enemy unit? no, so you can not choose to shoot at it, nor assault it, and as it's not a enemy unit you can move within 1" of it.
see resolution should something scatter onto it below.

Just like with vehicles you have to see the hull or turret, we ignore everything else, like with the orks battlewagon and their upgrade of a deff rolla. The deff rolla was never considered part of the hull, so just seeing the upgrade was not enough to target the vehicle. So when determining LOS to a building, you have to see the hull of the building, and you measure to the hull of the building. (since when do buildings have hulls? NVM tangent )

Your hype 1. No. Bring it back in, you're going so far off on a tangent I think you're getting lost.
hype 2. 4+, you really want to bring beam weapons into this already foggy discussion? You target a point on the ground, all 'units' under the beam are hit, number of hits based on 'models' under the line, any 'unit' under the line can deny the witch, so 4+ as a unit had a model with that ability.

I don't need a house rule for the initiative test like you claim:

So it is really simple, your explanations require a House Rule so models without Profiles are incapable of triggering any Rule while mine already has Rule Written support for the same.

We have the rule: "such a test can be applied against any characteristic that the model has."
No, the model of the ADL does not need to test it's initiative.

which is why I agree that :

We would have to resolve a Blast Marker against a Defense Line segment, but can not do so because it lacks a Profile to calculate To Wounds against....

as we can not resolve it, we just skip it.

I understand your stance of:

See why I simply can see no answer other then 'Things without a profile are non-models, as supported by the definition put forth at the start of a book requiring Models to have a Profile and a Unit Type....'

But you don't stick to it, and you dance around it for any rules interaction you don't agree with. If RAW gun emplacements are not models, then why is it 'strict rules as written' and not just RAW blasts, templates, beam weapons, focused witch fires, etc can't hit them as they are not models nor units? If they're not models, why strive to treat them as such? It's the dancing around the issue that makes me think your side is up to something fishy.

So far I haven't house ruled anything, while your list of house rules is growing. Hopefully this clarifies my position.

Another error in your assumptions: that we are informed only of what aspects of the Transport Rules to use, so anything not specified must be an aspect we can not access. That Rule though contains a very interesting key word that you seem to constantly overlook all. We are instructed that we use all aspect of Transport Rules, not some of them, so we use all related Rules unless told otherwise. Now there is a list of exceptions which follows that sentence, but unless they put Unit Type within that list of exceptions then it is an aspect of the Transport Rules which has to be applied. This is why Buildings do not have anywhere near the number of problems as Gun Emplacements, problems it still face underneath your interpenetration as well.

Now this is where I start to get a bit confused, given that we are talking about the state which is a true/false and outside of the realm of quantum mechanics. If something can not be described as X, because it lacks certain criteria that X must possess, then it can accurately be described as not-X. It is as simple as that when it comes to Scenery Terrain, as they lack access to a Profile and a Unit Type they can not be considered to be models in any Rule sense of the Rule. Only in situations where they are granted these missing elements, or we are informed that they simply meet the criteria, can we change the state from 'something which fails to meet the description' to 'something which compiles with the description.'

This next paragraph had me laugh though, did you honestly just make the argument that models can be broken up into multiple Units by default?

Now I do know of a few Units which have the ability to do just that, but each one of them clearly has Rules telling us which Models can split away and how we handle them after the fact. To my knowledge, no Terrain piece has ever had such a Rule so there is nothing you could evoke to grant the ability for them to be different Units. As for the rest of your paragraph, large structures such as the Fortress of Redemption have access to a Rule which informs us that each section is treated as an entirely different building. This is why no one has ever treated them as some sort of 'squadron,' because they have access to a Rule informing us that they function as independent Buildings and therefore independent Units. Just so you will know, these same Rules link options purchased for multiple-part structures to each individual part it was purchased for.

I will skip over the sanctum imperial part, as none of us have been discussing neutral non-models prior to this and I can not fathom where that is going.

After this you stated that you agreed with a sentence I put forth, but you ignored the entire context of that sentence: Without permission to ignore something, we can not ignore it.
Your answer for all the problems created by trying to resolve things against 'Models without Profiles and Unit Types' is to simply ignore that the problems even exist in the first place. While it is an understandable stance for an analog thinking, it is not one that is supported in a system that requires Written permission to do something. I would also like to highlight that finding permission to ignore one element of the problems has not proven that we can ignore all of them. To Wound are not a Character Test so we have to resolve them against a profile which doesn't exist and don't have permission to continue the game past that point. Hence the need for your explanation to have a House Rule to state we can ignore all Rule interaction because there will always be some interaction not addressed that breaks due to the lack of a Profile.

As for the claim I am hypocritically applying my stance allow me to state thus:
I might of made a few bad choice of words at some point, given how you have have tried to twist my words around as much as possible, but as far as I know I have always had the one stance: Scenery Models are non-model entities due to lack of Profile and Unit Type. This viewpoint has always acknowledge pages of Rules that exist in order to address how these non-models fit within Rules that address models, some with a good deal of thought behind then and some that are very basic and poorly executed. It is the existence of these Rules which I use as grounds for why Buildings and, to a lesser and poorly worded extent, Gun Emplacements function the way that they do.

So if you want to continue to ignore all the broken scenarios that your side creates and focus on the one broken scenario that I have agreed is a problem then feel free to do so....
Even though that same scenario is problematic to your current stance of 'ignore models without Profiles' given that the Rules grant a profile only when shot at, so it lacks one when it comes to resolving a scattered blast marker....

look at the transport rules, read all the transport rules, find the usage of unit type. A vehicle with the unit type: transport can use the transport rules. Buildings are given permission to use the transport rules, that does not grant them the unit type, that lets them use the aspects found under the transport rules. ie transport capacity, firepoints, and access points. If the error in assumption here is not mine, it must be ....

I said nothing like "models can be broken up into multiple Units by default? " You made the claim in your hypothetical that upgrades count as part of the building or are part of the buildings unit, I refuted it by showing you that your logic is flawed for a fortress & the way you presented it. You brought it up when you asked:

Each Building has the option of purchasing upgrades, such as barricades and barbed wire
These pieces are represented by Citadel Scenery Models which are deployed alongside but separate to the Building they where purchased for
A Unit is in Melta range to one such barricade, but not to the Building itself
Does benefit from Melta or not?

you asked if you can shoot at a upgrade as if it was the building, I never said anything of the sort and tried to show you why it's wrong, and you take it even further. You refer to this as a strawman.

I bring up a generic scenery piece to cover the entire spectrum. We have buildings on one end (which you say I can't win with even though you call them models because of your unit type house rule), and ruins /battlefield debris on the other with the gun emplacement moving towards the middle. I bring it up to show that there are no rules issues with them, by labeling them as models like GW did. Based on your hypotheticals I really don't think you are understanding my position and used it to help clarify it.

If it can't be resolved then it can't be resolved and there's no point dwelling on it. It's a general practice to ignore things that don't matter, like in an assault with a vehicle, RAW every engaged model must fight. But do you go and roll to hit and pens for the models that have no chance in causing a glance or pen?

go read through your series of hypotheticals, and ask yourself, who is twisting words?

Gun emplacements are not causing problems based on my usage of the word model. the marker scatters, you see the model underneath it. it has been hit and profile that can be used. In the shooting phase, you choose an enemy unit to shoot and choose the gun emplacement. You need 2 house rules to cover this as from the way you used 'strictly RAW' you seem to be saying you want blasts to still affect them even if scattered.

I'm ignoring nothing, from both our claims the other is using house rules and creating broken scenarios. Your last two hypothetical though really went off on a tangent and I still answered them.

You clearly are calling buildings models, they have a profile, you've given them a unit type, by your own criteria they are models. I know, but it's only during shooting attacks, the psychic phase, assaults, or when affected by special rules. Basically during the entire game they are models. Should I quote where you said it so you can see I didn't twist your words?

At least in situations where the Count As clauses can be triggered, they are Models

you claim they're not models, then treat them like one whenever you interact with them. I'm glad you see that for what it is. How about this then for your counter claim "while strictly RAW they are not models, I treat them like one during the game."

Or maybe you can finally answer this question:
This question I'd really like an answer to: In relation to buildings, is there any rule when being a non model makes a difference?

Interesting claim, to state permission to use Rules found within the Unit Type section of the Rulebook excludes access to the Unit Type itself. I find it interesting as it requires a nice twisting of common sense which I do find entertaining to think on, and even I don't think we can properly determine if the statement is correct or not even if we had many weeks of discussion on that alone. However, instead of spending weeks on does or does it not gain access, I am just going to point back to the all in the Rule and that it means just that, all of the aspects of a Transport Vehicle must be used for Buildings unless otherwise specified. That leaves just one simple question: Is the Unit Type of 'Vehicle: Transport' an aspect of all Transport Vehicles possess?

Now I will have to carry out an underhanded apology next as I did take your words, "All models in your army are formed into units, but that does not equate to them being in the same unit." as a claim that the Models in question can be broken into multiple Units, even when they don't specifically mention being able to do so in their entries. It was my belief that you where going to explain away some of the 'immortal Buildings and Gun Encampment' issues created if all Citadel Scenery Model are models and therefore part of the same Unit by stating they are all their own own Units. That would make it so they wouldn't be included as part of the resolution against the Building or Gun Emplacement itself, but doesn't have any actual Rule support in these situations. So I do apologize for assuming that you intended to that these Scenery Models have permission to be different Units.
So I will do the polite thing I should of done to begin with and ask: Why did you think it was important to state that Models do not have to belong to the same Unit?

As for the Melta situation; putting forth a hypothetical situation and ask how a person would resolve it is far from a Straw-man even if the situation was loaded. I do find it humerus that the situation I put forth wasn't even that "loaded," as it wasn't designed to get any specific answer from you that I could use for a 'got ya' moment. It was nothing more then a request for you to honestly answer how you would go about confirming if the Melta Rule triggers in that situation. My actual hope for those situations was to draw your attention this little problem: We measure from the closest model in the Unit when determining distances. If the Barricade is a Model within the Unit known as a Bastion, then measuring to that Unit requires us to draw to the Barricade as it would be the closest Model. If the Barricade does not trigger this Rule, then it becomes very important for you to explain how it can still be a model but doesn't trigger any model related Rules by presenting something which allows these things to be immune. Hopefully, it will be an explanation that also includes why a Defense Line isn't considered the closest Model for Wound Allocation as well.

If it is nothing more then 'No Profile means the Rule can't be applied' I am simply going to ask:
Do you have anything to support for that concept, specifically instructions informing us exactly when it is safe to ignore certain Rules and when they are applied?

The Gun Emplacement is an interesting to bring up next, considering it is one thing that cause me problems from several points of view. Some of these concerns are not even addressed by making it into a Model, one has to do with the fact it has no Enemy or Friendly designation for example. In fact, let us address that element and apply the concept that it is a model as well to the equation: If purchased as part of your opponents Army it would receive the Enemy designation and part of your army would make it Friendly. Enemy Models would not be able to move into 1 inch from the Gun Emplacement, and technically the entire Defense Line, nor will any of your side be able to shoot at the gun itself if the enemy did manage to find some way to touch it such as a Charge.
Can we simply accept that the Rules for it are just so poorly written, to the point I could make believable 'Rule as Written' arguments that remove the profile from this thing completely unless it is being attacked in close combat, and leave it at that?

On the matter of your closing I do have a request, change the counter claim to read so we can see a middle ground:
Objects which lacks a Unit Type(and possibly Terrain Types) or Profile require alternative instructions granting them access to any model-specific Rules.
Then we can simply state our disagreement is over what to call those Objects, and I will leave the debate over Terrain=Unit Type to others.

I will answer your last question as well, because you are asking me from a personal stand point. Honestly, I do not know any off the top of my head and doubt we will ever encounter a scenario where this whole academical discussion on the correct Rule interpenetration will ever matter. The Count As Rules for Buildings are pretty extensive and they cover a great deal of situations with so little cracks to speak of. This should be expected though, as very few elements in the book have three pages dedicated to how they function within the Rule-sets created and this covers a good deal of what will be encountered in 99.5% of the games. Of that tiny minority where it could create a problem, analog thinkers like you and I will ignore the discrepancies if encountered at the table and move on because a game as poorly written as 40K requires that from time to time.
However, if we where to encounter a Rule which is applied before the Game Begins and simply targets 'Models' then the definition becomes very important as we have to determine what is a Model and what is a non-Model.

Though if you wanted to see me twist words how about this:
Your stance is that Buildings do not gain access to the Unit Type of Vehicle: Transport but remain as a Model, correct?
What would happen if a Warlord Trait was to single out Non-Vehicles....
Twisted the argument right back to where it begun!

That leaves just one simple question: Is the Unit Type of 'Vehicle: Transport' an aspect of all Transport Vehicles possess?

No, it's a type that a vehicle may or may not have. Unit types are different from vehicle types, they are not equivalent. models have one unit type, vehicles can combine many types. If all transports were tanks, type (transport, tank) would you also claim buildings have the tank type? And wouldn't BS also be an aspect, and buildings don't list that as a main difference.

So I will do the polite thing I should of done to begin with and ask: Why did you think it was important to state that Models do not have to belong to the same Unit?

Bad choice of words on my part, take the fortress, it is 4 separate buildings bought as one fortification. From the example here we can see that a building and stand alone upgrades are also separate and not part of the same unit.

If purchased as part of your opponents Army it would receive the Enemy designation and part of your army would make it Friendly. Enemy Models would not be able to move into 1 inch from the Gun Emplacement, and technically the entire Defense Line, nor will any of your side be able to shoot at the gun itself if the enemy did manage to find some way to touch it such as a Charge.

I think this is the intent and not a problem, Fortifications can be included in your army. 'All units' have a battlefield role, and fortification is one of the most common roles listed. Fortification which can be buildings and/or battlefield debris.

However, if we where to encounter a Rule which is applied before the Game Begins and simply targets 'Models' then the definition becomes very important as we have to determine what is a Model and what is a non-Model.

If the game hasn't begun yet, is anything a model by the rules? citadel miniatures used to 'play' games of warhmmer are models. So until we start to play and the game begins any use of the word 'model' would have to be the dictionary usage of the word. When do we start playing? at the start of the game? during the pre game setup?

Though if you wanted to see me twist words how about this:
Your stance is that Buildings do not gain access to the Unit Type of Vehicle: Transport but remain as a Model, correct?
What would happen if a Warlord Trait was to single out Non-Vehicles....
Twisted the argument right back to where it begun!

yes
it could be used on models, assuming nothing else prevented it, just not vehicles nor buildings. Is their such a trait currently? I don't have all the codexes but I didn't find any in the BRB.

This is better as it leaves out 'not a model'.

Objects which lacks a Unit Type(and possibly Terrain Types) or Profile require alternative instructions granting them access to any model-specific Rules.

It also avoids all the follow up questions of "what do you mean by 'not a model' and 'how does that affect these rules that affect models' Which is what I always wonder when I see someone post they're not models.

Again we have to address the concept that Unit Types allocated to Vehicles are not Unit Types. Given that I have already pointed out the formatting of the book itself, that the Rules informing us how a Transport or a Skimmer work are found in the Unit Type section, and that the profiles file the Tank or Transport type under a heading 'Unit Type' indicate that these things are Unit Types. There are numerous other cases where Vehicles are referenced along side other Unit Types when discussing that different types of Units have different Rules which will be discussed in the Unit Type section of the book. At this point what will I need to show you to prove that Transport is just as valid a Unit Type as Jet Pack?

The reason why a something like the Fortress of Redemption has permission to be treated as separate entities is the Rules inform us to treat them as if they where entirely separate from each other. Without access to such a Rule, something like the Defense Line or a Imperial Bastion does not have permission to have each section be treated as separate entities. It wouldn't help even if they did have access, as Upgrades purchased for sections of a multiple part structure are also addressed by this Rule. Off the top of my head I can't remember the exact wording, but it was along the lines of each Upgrade being purchased for each individual section of Building... little hard to accept that Upgrades have permission to be treated as separate Buildings by default given those Rules.

Now I have to wonder, do you honestly believe that a Defense Line is intended to be an Enemy Model for all Rule purposes?
I raise this question because I already pointed out why it would be a problem using the most common rule conflict available: the inability to simply move into base contact with an Enemy Model.
Of course, if you want to take the stance that objects without a profile lack access to Model-Specific Rules, then the whole problem and a few other above ones go away....

As for the Game needing to begin for something to be a Model the answer is simply: No, it doesn't matter.
There are a wide range of Rules which trigger before an official 'start point' in the game, which occurs at some point when the Armies are Deployed.

As for the Twist back to the opening post:
Why not Buildings, are they Vehicle Models by default?

As for those follow up questions I would answer them by stating:
Non-Models are objects which lack a Profile or Unit Type, something we are told Models will possess, and where given the title of non-model for contrast.
These Objects, regardless if we call then non-models or Mr. Bob, then lack access to any Rule in which a 'Model' or 'Unit' is the subject of said Rule by virtue of not being the named subject matter. This in turn forces any Rule wishing to interact with the Object in question to single it out by name, to specify that X has access to Y. Making a distinction between true Models and these objects is vital, given the number of Rules which will cause a conflict if they are applied to one of these Objects, either through lack of instructions on how to successfully resolve or simply by producing really unusual situations to form.

In Short: It gives us the ability to state any Rule which requires a Profile or Unit Type to function can not be applied to something which lacks these Features, with Rule backed support as to why.

At this point what will I need to show you to prove that Transport is just as valid a Unit Type as Jet Pack?

You can't, this is one of the fundamental flaws in your argument. you say "see they mention vehicles under unit type" but 'vehicles are distinct enough to require their own section later on' Vehicles do not have unit types, they have vehicle types. that are so distinct, ie different, not the same as unit types they didn't put them under unit types. Every time you say vehicles are referenced under unit types, it is to say they are different and need their own section. so vehicle types are not the same as unit types. And when we find the vehicles own section they have 'types' not 'unit types'. Lastly you can be a unit without a unit type as vehicles are units without a unit types.

To ask a second time: wouldn't BS also be an aspect, and buildings don't list that as a main difference. If the vehicle profile is part of the aspect that all transports have, what is the BS of the building?

Why not Buildings, are they Vehicle Models by default?

Not by default, just anytime, any rule looks at them. Are you claiming buildings are non vehicle models for pre game rules purposes? It would help if you could point to a specific rule to help clarify this point.

Now I have to wonder, do you honestly believe that a Defense Line is intended to be an Enemy Model for all Rule purposes?
yes based on these rules I posted.

Fortifications can be included in your army. 'All units' have a battlefield role, and fortification is one of the most common roles listed. Fortification which can be buildings and/or battlefield debris. all that is important is that each unit uses a single slot on the force organization chart.

All units have a battlefield role, fortification is a battlefield role, battlefield debris are a fortification in your army. the ADL is therefore a unit with the battlefield role of fortification.

Read through 119 & 120 and see how in order to put something onto the FOC it must be a unit. Or would you like to claim fortifications do not take up FOC slots because they're not units before the start of the game, and therefore you can never take any? Now that would solve all of the problems

They have a unit type, the unit type is vehicle.

Referencing the Codex: Space Marines, Rhino entry: "Unit Type: • Vehicle (Tank, Transport)"

And the Ork Codex Trukk Entry: "UNIT TYPE: Vehicle (Fast, Open-topped, Transport)."

So clearly Vehicle is a unit type. and fast, Tank, Transport, Open-topped, are all different types of vehicles, though they are all still unit type Vehicle.

So your answer to "what I will need to show to prove the point?" was to outright state that nothing can prove this point to you?
At this moment in time I am seriously wondering if I misjudged you. I was posting under the assumption that you would review what I have posted, think on the evidence put forth and then come to a conclusion at that point in the process. With an open admittance that nothing I post will ever be enough to convince you of this matter, I must change that assumption to conclude that you only are interested in hammering on the table to drown out any opposing viewpoint.
I will simply choose not to waste my time any further: You may continue to assume that a section found under the heading of 'Unit Types,' related to a value that can be found in the Unit Type section on a profile, is talking about something completely unrelated to Unit Types if you wish to do so.

I will try and answer your questions, but don't expect me to give it much thought considering the above:
The Ballistic Score granted to a Building is covered within the pages of Rules designed for that purpose
The Rule for determining when they are treated as Vehicle do not state 'any time' but give us specific interactions in which they count as Vehicles
Battlefield Role is irrelevant, a Rule stating the "Object" has permission to be fill a Fortification Slot means it has permission to fill said Slot

Not at all, but when it comes to unit types & vehicle types I have thought about it, and see no reason to equate the two. Under unit type we are told exactly that for vehicles. What would it take to convince you, that it is you are in error for equating the two? Everywhere you can point to that says 'vehicles' it only tells that they are different and have their own rules.

The Rule for determining when they are treated as Vehicle do not state 'any time' but give us specific interactions in which they count as Vehicles

That's what I said "anytime, any rule looks at them"

Battlefield Role is irrelevant, a Rule stating the "Object" has permission to be fill a Fortification Slot means it has permission to fill said Slot

And units have permission fill those slots. "each slot allows you to take one unit"

Unit Types:-
Under what Heading in the book are the Vehicle Rules found, not the title of the section or sub-section but the very Heading in which those sections and sub-sections are found?
When looking at an Army Entry for a Devilish what is the name of the field in which 'transport' has been written?

What will convince me that the two are not linked:
1) You will have to find an answer to the above two questions, which are relevant to the core reason why I believe they are Unit Types, which explains why the Rules have been 'misfiled'
2) Put forth a theory that supports Vehicles successfully Resolving scenarios containing Rules singling out Profile and a Unit Type requirements
3) Quote a few Rules from the book which can support that theory, not situation Rule interactions which might be made 'smoother' by such a concept but straight up Rule quotes that allow Vehicles to gain access to these Rules without having Unit Types of their own.

Count As Vehicle:
The Rule doesn't read 'anytime, any rule looks at them' either....

Slots:
Units having permission by default is meaningless, if permission for a 'non-Unit object' to take the Slot also exists....

I'll get back to you on unit types.

counts as vehicles, I simplified the statement but that is what it is saying. I know technically, it's only during the shooting phase, the psychic phase, the assault phase, or when affected by special rules.

For the FOC and slots.
"This section of the detachment lists the minimum and maximum number of units of each type that you must or may include in the detachment."
"Each slot allows you to take one unit."

the fortification slot, allows you to take one unit. There is no permission for non units to take the slot. You have permission to fill that slot with a unit.

the force roster: "write down the details of the models that make up your army, which units belong to which detachments."

Everything you do when choosing your army requires models and units.

Like you said earlier:

However, if we where to encounter a Rule which is applied before the Game Begins and simply targets 'Models' then the definition becomes very important as we have to determine what is a Model and what is a non-Model.

Are buildings and ADL's models when making your force roster? Do they have to belong to a detachment like units are required to do?

Something I have always found curious is that Warlord Traits are always listed separate from Special Rules....

Force Organization Slot:
The possible path that you are taking with this one has me interested, I will review the Rules more closely when I have access to my library.
Entries flagged for use as Fortifications already have access to the Fortification Slot, regardless of Unit status, but there could still be some secondary Rule interactions that would be interesting to observe.

JinxDragon wrote:
Something I have always found curious is that Warlord Traits are always listed separate from Special Rules....

Well if you go with the definition of special rules:
"whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule"

Of course this is a whole new can of worms.

As warlord traits bends or breaks the main game rules, they are special rules.

Let me know what you find after reviewing the rules.

That sentence is also curious to me, more so in relation to Warlord Traits, as it singles out main game Rules:
How do we go about defining which Rules are 'Main Game Rules' and which ones are simply 'A Rule within the Game?'

I have been pondering, not seriously because I have not had a reason to do so, if it would be possible to claim that Warlord Traits are themselves a 'Main Game Rule' and therefore any Warlord Trait is not a Special Rule as it isn't modifying itself. This line of thought would involve using the format of the book itself, highlighting that Warlord Traits are located right in the 'selecting your Army' section of the book, and pointing out that the surrounding sections would all be defined as 'Main Game Rules' as they inform us how to go about playing the game as opposed to modifying already existing Rules. This could be coupled with the fact that sentence states whenever a creature or weapon has... and pointing out that Warlord Traits are not something that creature or weapon gains by default but something rewarded to the Model by a possible 'Main Rule' itself. I did have a third point but due to timing I have to go so It will be left unsaid....

Still, side pondering which are meaningless:
Just inform me when you have more to say on Unit Types as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will be honest, I am a little... intoxicated which is why I wanted to put this off but I had something I wanted to look into. That was the way Datasheets are formatted but while doing so I found the Rule which brought more things to light:
Each datasheet uses up a single fortification slot on the Force Organisation chart.
- Fortification Datasheets, Stronghold Assault.

Well let us throw sleep deprivation on top to make things interesting.
Here we have a quoted Rule from the source-book containing the Datasheet used for the only Citadel Scenery Models with permission to be included in Warhammer 40k as Fortifications. It does multiple things, ranging from preventing the Fortification being put into two Detachments or multiple Fortifications into a single Combined Arm Detachment, and covers the vast majority of the 'broken situations' you have put forth. The few minor cracks that might slip past that one sentence can do minor damage at best, and if you an find a few of those situations for me to review I will do just that. I can think of one or two little ones myself, once you add a fourth Rule interaction to the mix, that would potentially effect one situation in a single set of Units from a single Codex. I think cracks that small are more suitable to be waved away under 'situations far out of the Authors preview' however so it would be up to you to find such ones and see if there is any that I can see to be completely crumbling to my stance.

At this point I am going to have to return to the above problem I encountered when I asked a simple question: What is there I can do to prove this concept correct to you?

If you have watched Futurama you will likely know the episode with the meme 'I don't want to live on this planet anymore,' and how no matter which links are bridged the goal posts kept getting moved around so the opposition could claim success. I have not done much on the offensive, and your replies to them failed to convince me that your point was even supported let alone better supported then mine. I even considered the possibility that you simply refuse to consider the multiple issues caused by denying that 'non-model objects' exist, but I am still willing to continue because it has been quite interesting and let me learn some things about the Rules even if they strengthened my point of view more then your own. As long as I am not wasting my time, if there is nothing I can do to sway you from the point of view that everything purchased from Citadel are Models for all Rule purposes then we are just going to have to accept that players are smart enough to ignore the problems caused by that stance even if Rules are not.

But still, the three things below are normally the only points I have to make to support the concept at the end:
There are Rules designed to only work against objects with Profiles and Unit Types: True / False
There is a sentence defining Models, preventing objects without a Profile or Unit Type from interacting with these Rules: True / False
Objects which fail to meet this definition, but require access to the Rules, have pages informing us how they interact: True / False

Therefore:
Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can be ignored, as they are not the subject of Model-Related Rules being something other then a "Model."