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.

you keep stressing these points:

Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can therefore be ignored, they are not the subject of these Rules being something other then a "Model."

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.

Yet in all situations presented, you choose to equate buildings and the gun emplacement as models. This alone should crumble your stance. The only reason you don't see the full damage of your position is because you are ignoring the problems they create, you admit to waiving them away and you're treating them as models. If it is your stance, why not commit to it?

Do you have a fortification slot in your CAD, yes or no?
did you put a unit in it, yes or no?
If you have the slot, it opens up space for a unit to fill, ergo to put a fortification in it, it must be a unit.

I know you think this is your dance around the point

Each datasheet uses up a single fortification slot on the Force Organisation chart.

but it's not. "Each slot allows you to take one unit." the fortification data sheet allows you to take more units and count as one slot.

Would you list the ADL, building, or fortification datsheet on your army list? yes or no
did you spend the points for that model? yes or no
did you only take a single model? yes or no (assuming the composition stated 1 model like they usually do)
we list the details of models on the army list.
feel free to show how you choose your army and put non models and non units in it?

I've not moved the goal post at all, we are told many times that terrain pieces are models. Everywhere you see terrain, you see them referred to as models. we list fortification models on our army list, we fill our army list with units that fill the battlefield role of fortification. Your offensive went off on wild tangents and used the last editions rules for beam weapons. And most of the concepts you brought, I think those cracks are small and 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. I think they only difference we've found is that I would allow you to shoot at the ADL, but ask you to stay one inch away from it and the gun. Hardly a major issue and one easily settled.

My stance is simple, "citadel scenery models are models" If you question my position that is where I am coming from and how I am answering. Where your stance leads to anywhere you see the word model, you have to ask if you're counting it as a model then? You haven't even listed a rule yet, where being a non model makes a difference to any rules as applied to buildings, and only grudgingly for gun emplacements admitted that scattered blasts shouldn't hit them.

again you say,

Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can therefore be ignored, they are not the subject of these Rules being something other then a "Model."

Yet you grant buildings a unit type so they can be models. Because you equated using the transport rules, to having the transport type. If gun emplacements are not the subject of these rules, then why do you allow things that target models to affect them?

If you want to convince me that there are non models in the game, and that buildings, and gun emplacements are not models, then stop equating them to models.
You acknowledge there are 2 usages of the word 'model' in the rules, show how each use of the word 'model' is being used. Two uses, yet you only want to allow one in the rules.
state RAW, RAI and HYWPI, gun emplacements are not affected by beam weapons, blasts, templates, focused witchfires, and anything else targeting a model.
State strictly RAW you can't even take fortifications as you don't count them as models until you are told to, and army building is not one of the times you treat them as models, so you can't buy the model, list the model, nor have a fortification unit to fill the slot.
Objects which fail to meet the Definition of Model can therefore be ignored, they are not the subject of these Rules being something other then a "Model." right?

This is the song and dance I brought up earlier, You still claim they are not models, yet strive to treat them as such even when not told to count them as one. So much so that there is no difference for buildings or the gun emplacement, you even stated 'strictly RAW' scattered blasts don't affect gun emplacements, which I take to mean you don't play it that way. It's like you're ignoring the problems caused by that stance. It's also like your trying to get your forth piece of fluff by having tea and no tea at the same time. (hows that for an obscure reference )

For your questions:
There are Rules designed to only work against objects with a Profile and Unit Type: True / False (unknown I didn't design the game, so I can't answer to how it was designed, but if you're meaning that when we look at the rules, one at a time, will we find one rule that works against both profiles and unit types at the same time?, then I'd assume false.)
There is a sentence which prevents objects without a Profile or Unit Type from interacting with these Rules: True / False (False, why did you change 'and unit type' to 'or unit type'? you claim you need both, but changed your claim to only need 1.)
Objects which fail to meet this definition, but require access, have pages of Rules informing us how they interact: True / False (true and false, some do, some don't)

Context of why they can be ignored is important, that you keep ignoring to the point that I wonder if you are doing it deliberately. Let me try once more and see if this time you grasp the whole, instead of taking a single sentence and trying to make it into the whore argument: There exists a whole group of Rules which require the Objects they are interacting with to have a Profile and/or a Unit Type to function, these include a great deal of Rules which simply refer to 'Models' or by their collective term of 'Units.' At the start of the book we where given instructions that Models will have a Profile and a Unit Type, as well a few other things which we can derive from other places in the Rule Book. It is my stance that we have this description for a very important reason, because the Rules where written with the idea that Models will have them to begin with. The concept is simply objects without A) Rules allowing them access regardless of their lack of a Profile or Unit Type or B) have a Profile and Unit Type, are no longer the subject of the Rules.
By not being the subject of the Rule, the Rule has no ability to be applied to the Object in question and that stops a lot of Rules applying to things which they shouldn't apply to, as per my closing ****ish behavior.

You have tried to find multiple issues with this and I feel I have explained how these Non-Model Objects have Rules which allow them access regardless of their failings....
It is simple as that: I have quoted pages of rules, ones that you have acknowledge exist but simply refuse to admit why they exist, in order to address these failing.

But let me try and explain your Force Organization Slot problem a little better as that one was new:
First - Disregard every Rule that references things like 'each slot allows you to take a Unit...' for these Rules refer to how Units fill slots, not how Non-Model Objects fill slots.
- At this point we have to conclude that the Player can not fill the Fortification Slot, nothing we have been presented for choices are 'Units' and can not select one of these Non-Model Objects
Second - Evoke the Rule that allows you to take Fortification Datasheets to fill up that Slot instead, allowing us to select anything as legal Fortification's for an Army to possess
- Every Datasheet which is used for a Fortification Slot is found in the very same section this Rule is, in fact the next page starts with the Datasheets themselves
- This Rule states the Slot is used up, as in consumed, so after a Datasheet is taken another Slot is required
- This Rule states it can fill a single Slot, so after a Datasheet is taken to fill this Slot it can not fill a second Slot as well
- By singling out Datasheets can fill Slots, it allows the use of Networks which have Rules allowing multiple Fortifications to be selected within a single Slot
- Each Datasheet which contains multiple objects as part of their composition have access to a Rule allowing those Buildings to be treated as separate, with sub-rules for how upgrades purchased for those objects function
At this point, where is the problem?

But let see if I can check off some of your concerns now:-
Equating Models:
This I can not do, because there exists objects which do not have a Profile or Unit Type and we need some way to define them. As we are already using the definition of Model to describe things with a Profile and Unit Type, we can't ignore the link between the two. Calling an object without these features an anti-Model or non-Model is a good fast name for the whole group. For the sake of a middle ground though, will you be willing to admit that there is a third group which lack Profiles or Unit Types but still have access to the Rules thanks to a ream of secondary Rules informing us just that?
I have always admitted to 'Count As' Rules, so why not use them as a defining factor for ease of understanding?
Duel use of the term Model:
I see them refereed to first as Citadel Scenery Models, as a common name for something Game Workshop sells, so proper use of English. Some of the Rules tell us to refer back to the Citadel Scenery Line, while others simply refer to them by the whole name of 'Scenery Models.' With how often this section of the Rulebook has used a common name, mostly to promote sales as we shouldn't forget these Rules exist for that as well, it is suspect to simply assume the occasional use of simply 'model' is to show intention for all of these things to interact with Rules requiring Profiles or Unit Types.
I find it extremely interesting that the few situations where it is simply refereed to as 'model' have also had the piece refereed to as a 'Citadel Scenery Model' prior in the same Rule.
Gun Emplacements:
Rule as written = Beam weapons, blast, template, focused Witch fires and such - Only if targeted
- This is a problem with the Gun Emplacement Rules and not the base concept, thanks to the single line of instructions which are meaningless: Can Be Shot at. 'shot at' which I take to mean targeted.
- It exists for considering it a full Model as well, as has the following profile: is less then quarter of the Rule and not even a full sentence.
- The Rule begins by stating A gun emplacement can be shot at... which means it still needs permission to be shot at in order to have the profile
--- Strict Technical Rule as Written it only has a Profile when Hit automatically in Close Combat as that is part of the very same sentence !
Rule as Intended = Unknown, the Authors have done strange things with Blast Markers and I have always doubted some interactions because of that, however I doubt they intended for Gun Emplacements to be immune
How I Play It = Ignore how poorly the Rule is written by stating it has access to the Sequence regardless of being targeted or not, but I also play it so the Gun Emplacement is the only thing affected even if it is part of a Defense Line and other segments are also under the Marker.
Strict Rule as Written on Fortification in detail:
The explanation far above about Fortification Datasheets addresses this, granting permission for the ... lets say psudo-models ... to be taken regardless of their status as Units or Models which undermines your argument completely.

This has been the same for many of the other 'if it is not a model, how can it do this?' scenarios you have put forth because there exists a Rule to tell is exactly how they gain access to the Rule regardless of Model status.

As to the 'answers' you provided to my question:
I will have to say thank you for being so obtuse on the questions I put forth that I would have to respect it as trolling.

First Question:
You clearly understand what I mean by Profile "and" Unit Type, after the arguments you have tried I know very well that you understood it was a typo and should of read Profile or Unit Type.
If you want to reevaluate your question, cause even basic Shooting Rules require things like a Profile to function, feel free to do so.
Second Question:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
and
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.
and
In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type
Want to retract that answer completely?
Third Question, follow up:
Which Objects require access to the basic Rules but do not already have some sort of 'Count as' or other instruction telling us that fact?

Now I know if you will want to answer because I am going to be very ****ish now:- In this Hypothetical you are correct and anything refereed to as "Citadel Scenery Models" are Models for all Rule purposes....
Putting aside that they now violated all the Rules I just quoted, by not having the required criteria, let us continue through the rest of the Rulebook from just that point forward and see what questions come to light:

Units - Models are grouped into Units
--- Important, as this would make each Datasheet a single Unit, unless otherwise stated like Networks, then every segment is part of that Unit
Bases - Models are mounded on the base they are supplied with, in cases where bases are not supplied we are free to mount them on suitable bases
--- Thanks for making my Defense Line a little taller, but it could be stated as a requirement that Models have bases - Vehicles later get around this with more advanced Rules allowing substitution of Hull for base but Battlefield Debris does not have access to Vehicle Rules
Measuring - Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base. Distances between units are always measured to and from the bases of the closest models in each of the units (see the diagram below).
--- This makes it so we measure to the closest Citadel Scenery Model in the group for all purposes involving Measurement
Characteristic Tests - Such a test can be applied against any characteristic that the model has, except for Leadership and Armour Save.
--- Just unusual Terminology, thought to mark it as such and it can be ignored for now .... sure I am over-looking another Rule which denies Characteristic Tests against Profiles without the Characteristic but if that was the line... excepting Leadership, how interesting.
--- Though I could again point out that Vehicles have Rules stating they ignore all Leadership tests but what about our good old Battlefield Debris again?
Friendly and Enemy Models - All models on the same side are friendly models. Models controlled by the opposing side are enemy models.
--- All the purchased Fortification are Enemy Models for all Rule purposes, very important

Movement: Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.
--- Buildings have a clause stating they are Immobile regardless of permission to move, what about Battlefield Debris?
--- Did this just give me permission to move my Defense Line segments around?
Models in the way: A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.
--- While they are difficult terrain, if they are Enemy Models they can not be moved into 1 inch of and friendly Models can not move over them without special Rules allowing them to do such
Moving and Close Combat
--- Vehicles have Rules granting Enemy Units exception to being Locked in Combat, Battlefield Debris does not have access to Vehicle Rules, so Enemy Units in contact with a Defense Line Segment....

You Know what, at this point I will stop as I didn't even get all the way through the first phase of the basic Rules before I found all sorts of questions that I am sure you will be able to address with enough time. I didn't even get to the really fun ones, such as Wound Allocation and Line of Sight to Enemy Models and questions along the lines of 'does the lack of a Body make them immune to Line of Sight Requirements.' However, in interest of not recreating the entire of the Rulebook and getting DakkaDakka shut down for flagrant Copyright violation, let us leave the line of questions and pointing out unusual situations at just the first phase of the Rulebook and some pre-phase Rules.

Of the questions which have been raise with the concept of 'Non-Model Objects,' the vast vast vast majority have been answered by quoting more Advanced Rules further in the Rule-book to explain how these objects can legally function with the Rules in question.
So to come close to somewhere equal you find one simple quotable Rule explaining the following:
How does your side address situations where Rules can not be applied to "Models" without a Profile and/or Unit Type?

But let us we see one line again:
Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on)
As if Terrain features, such as that represented by Citadel Scenery Models, and Rule-based Models are separate objects.

As to the 'answers' you provided to my question:
I will have to say thank you for being so obtuse on the questions I put forth that I would have to respect it as trolling.

First Question:
You clearly understand what I mean by Profile "and" Unit Type, after the arguments you have tried I know very well that you understood it was a typo and should of read Profile or Unit Type.
If you want to reevaluate your question, cause even basic Shooting non-Vehicle Rules require things like a Wound Characteristic to function, feel free to do so.
Second Question:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
and
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.
and
In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type
Want to retract that answer completely?
Third Question, follow up:
Which Objects require access to the basic Rules but do not already have some sort of 'Count as' or other instruction telling us that fact?

First as you think I keep twisting your words, I could only answer the questions as you put them. Not try to deduce what you meant which is why I asked follow up questions.
second question, you said there is "A" sentence, singular, you stated 4. The way you asked your question, it could only be answered as false.
third, buildings have pages, gun emplacements have 2 sentences.

If you ask obtuse questions, and expect a true or false answer, you'll get the answers for the questions you asked. Should I have just answered False, False, Both? Those were the answers you were asking for. Because I elaborated, I'm being obtuse?

You're off on some fun new tangents, so lets just start with a couple to show some the liberties you are taking with the rules. I'll skip counting up the number of rules you ignored and got wrong. As I think we've covered this enough for today.

What base was your ADL supplied with?
pg 62, unit types, "so far we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry. The movement rules are how infantry moves. Those basic rules get modified for units, there's a chart in the reference section that breaks down how far units can move. so no you can't move your ADL around.

I think you need to calm down, edit your post for clarity, because a lot of it is not making sense and some of it is demonstrably wrong. ie gun emplacements and beam weapons, beam weapons don't target units, they target a point on the battlefield.

and speaking of locked in combat, let's bring it back to the middle. If the gun emplacement is assaulted, and you let all usages of model mean gun emplacement, are you locked in combat with the gun emplacement? You should answer yes here, but I'm not sure if you would.

I have always admitted to 'Count As' Rules, so why not use them as a defining factor for ease of understanding?

Because as I have pointed out, creating a model/non model dichotomy does not lead to a ease of understanding.

Doubtful my questions where that confusion, but when your splitting hairs over four sentence not being 'A Sentence' as if that waves away the Rules being quoted I think it speaks enough for itself....

Besides I mentioned I am done with the defensive responses, let me just pretend to simply be a young Rule Lawyer asking you how the Rules interact with Citadel Scenery Models. Should I find something and bring it to your attention you simply can do me the pleasure of explaining how it works, quoting as many Rules as possible to support why it works as you describe it. Should I bring a list of problems, I simply ask that you do not just address one that you view to be the weakest/easiest point on the list, because that will leave me believing all the rest are problems that can not be addressed. So to keep it all fairly simple let me ask:

How do Citadel Scenery Models interact with the Movement Phase Rules?

PS: - I evoke my Rule granted permission to mount them on suitable bases, now they are legally on bases....

JinxDragon wrote:
Doubtful my questions where that confusion, but when your splitting hairs over four sentence not being 'A Sentence' as if that waves away the Rules being quoted I think it speaks enough for itself....

Besides I mentioned I am done with the defensive responses, let me just pretend to simply be a young Rule Lawyer asking you how the Rules interact with Citadel Scenery Models. Should I find something and bring it to your attention you must do the same curtsy I tried to give you and explain how it works, quoting as many Rules as possible to support your view if we encounter a problem. I will expect you to answer as many questions and address the points that arise as possible, I did try and do that much for you even if we overlooked a few along the four pages and walls of texts. I simply ask that you do not just address one that you view to be the weakest point on the list, because that will be quite obvious. Start with what seems to be the most pressing of conflicts is my advice, so explain for me how Citadel Scenery Models interact with the Movement Phase, particularly Battlefield Debris purchased as a Fortification...

PS: - I evoke my Rule granted permission to mount them on suitable bases, now they are legally on bases....

I've covered the movement phase in this thread, both fortification and scenery not purchased as fortifications. They don't move, and you stay an inch away from them.

But I'm curious, humor me before I write a thesis on the movement phase. Let's say you have a tank next to a enemy building, how do you play it? can you move withing 1" of it? can you pivot throughit? can you just move through it, or do you have to go around?

Or instead of the thesis, come down some weekend, I'll buy the beer and we'll work this out over a game

I will wait to find out how you explain away things like 'Models move 6 Inches' and I won't even begin to address the more complicated Rule interactions.

Even though it is against my better judgement, given how answering your questions in the past has led no where given nothing I state will persuade you:
Rule as Written - Both have access to Model Specific Rules, directly for the Tank and through pages of additional Rules for the Building
How I play it - Certain Buildings Rules require the enemy to be able to approach them, so I ignore the 1 inch bubble

I will guess that, after two weeks without this thesis being posted, it will not be forth coming?
Pity, I was really wanting to see how your interpretation would handle granting Terrain access to even the most basic of Model-Specific Rules....

JinxDragon wrote:
I will guess that, after two weeks without this thesis being posted, it will not be forth coming?
Pity, I was really wanting to see how your interpretation would handle granting Terrain access to even the most basic of Model-Specific Rules....

slow day at work?

If I knew you were waiting for it I would have sent you a pm telling you I decided against it. I mainly used it as a lead in to ask you about vehicles driving through buildings to show once again, you claim they're not models, they're not models in the movement phase as that's not one of the counts as clauses, yet you don't seem to want to state 'sure drive through them and no dangerous terrain tests needed' is it because you are still striving to treat them as models?

As I had just posted as to why you can't move your ADL,
"pg 62, unit types, "so far we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry. The movement rules are how infantry moves. Those basic rules get modified for units, there's a chart in the reference section that breaks down how far units can move. so no you can't move your ADL around. "

when you followed up with "How do Citadel Scenery Models interact with the Movement Phase Rules? "

I got the impression you weren't reading anything I typed. I did consider writing one, but there was just to many more important things to do, so I decided against it. Scenery models are not infantry models and have no permission to move. it was going to be a short thesis anyways

Sirlynchmob:
As I stated before in my replies, I have answered all these questions many times in the past but you continue to ignore the answers. Instead you re-purpose the question as if asking it again in a different way changes any of the answers provided to you, or makes the pages of Rules I have referenced disappear. I have stopped playing that little game with you because, outside of a tiny fraction of situations which cause problems for every interpretation, you have found very little in weeks of questioning and grilling on the matter. The answers I have provided in the past still apply, and it has become far more obvious you are not interested in being swayed by pages of Rules being quoted. I treat Buildings as Models because they use all aspects of Transport Vehicle Rules unless otherwise stated, and have pages of Rules that wouldn't exist if you are correct.

I am more interested in having you explain how ever Model specific Rule does not apply to Terrain as there is hundreds of pages to go through but seeing as you are not... I will probably not bother wasting either of our time on this matter further. Needless to say though, when you are left trying to Resolve Rules against something lacking a Profile simply because their common name contains the word 'Model' it might be time to reconsider. Given that the definition at the front of the book is normally enough to convince people that there exists a 'non-model object' category, and from there it isn't difficult to apply that concept as to why Terrain does not interact with the Rules, I will leave that as my final advise on those whom might dig through these archives.

JinxDragon wrote:
Sirlynchmob:
As I stated before in my replies, I have answered all these questions many times in the past but you continue to ignore the answers. Instead you re-purpose the question as if asking it again in a different way changes any of the answers provided to you, or makes the pages of Rules I have referenced disappear. I have stopped playing that little game with you because, outside of a tiny fraction of situations which cause problems for every interpretation, you have found very little in weeks of questioning and grilling on the matter. The answers I have provided in the past still apply, and it has become far more obvious you are not interested in being swayed by pages of Rules being quoted. I treat Buildings as Models because they use all aspects of Transport Vehicle Rules unless otherwise stated, and have pages of Rules that wouldn't exist if you are correct.

I am more interested in having you explain how ever Model specific Rule does not apply to Terrain as there is hundreds of pages to go through but seeing as you are not... I will probably not bother wasting either of our time on this matter further. Needless to say though, when you are left trying to Resolve Rules against something lacking a Profile simply because their common name contains the word 'Model' it might be time to reconsider. Given that the definition at the front of the book is normally enough to convince people that there exists a 'non-model object' category, and from there it isn't difficult to apply that concept as to why Terrain does not interact with the Rules, I will leave that as my final advise on those whom might dig through these archives.

my final advice.
You do far more with treating buildings as models then the rules you quote allow for. You treat them more like models than I do, as you want them to give up first blood. some of your questions were about rules situations for 6th edition that no longer worked for 7th. Oh I've only pointed out a tiny fraction that's wrong with your interpretation? By my count you're using more house rules than I am.

Every model specific rule? god no, I have better things to do with my time. I could be swayed, but the rules don't support the conclusion you're trying to present, especially while you go out of your way to ignore the conclusion you're presenting. If you want to analyze all usages of the word 'model', while you admit to GW using it in 2 different meanings, you would have to show which meaning is being used for each use of the word model. Which you can't do as you've limited it to the definition for infantry models. This is why I don't buy into your interpretation.

Yes the definition in the front is very convincing "The citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." Like 'citadel scenery models' Are 'citadel scenery models' miniatures? Yep. Are they used to play the game? Yep. Right there, we are told they are referred to as 'models'

I call them models, you treat them as models in all situations, so in the end it's really the exact same conclusion.

Terrain does interact with the rules, the rules have quite a lot to say on the subject.

Well this has been thoroughly argued back and forth and I don't know what more can be done to convince either side any differently.

Im gonna play it as follows though:

Fortifications purchased as part of your army list count as models for the purpose's of scoring (including first blood and holding objectives), but do not count towards kill points in Purge the alien (as they are not considered units). If your army has the ability to infiltrate models, the fortifications can be infiltrated. If your only allowed to infiltrate units however, you cannot.

Fortifications that are just part of the battlefield begin the game neutral and thus do not count towards first blood and holding objectives (although the unit inside them can still claim any objectives within 3" of them).

So, we seem to be about done here.