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.

Sunhero,
I will ask you this question as no one has been able to give me a good enough answer for it:
If a Building is already a Model, why did the Authors include pages of Rules all designed to allow Buildings access to Model-specific Rules?

Stronghold Assault, which has all the rules governing buildings...lists them all as...wait for it, not units, but Terrain Types?!? So why is there a question?

Also...common sense please? Don't be dumb by trying to Deep Strike a Bastion...people these days...it's a fun game why try to make it all the more complicated?

HawiiMatt,
Your Reply shows that you now have a full grasp of the situation.
The loophole you have highlight is a very interesting one, it might very well be a possible way to get a Deep Striking Building legally onto the field....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Foto69msn,
Much of those Rules have been Errata'ed out of existence.

JinxDragon wrote:
HawiiMatt,
Your Reply shows that you now have a full grasp of the situation.
The loophole you have highlight is a very interesting one, it might very well be a possible way to get a Deep Striking Building legally onto the field....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Foto69msn,
Much of those Rules have been Errata'ed out of existence.

Ok, well I read the FAQ, but it doesnt delete Stronghold Assault from existing nor change their type from Terrain? Also what about the BRB calling them terrain too? And Fortifications are not listed under unit types?

Edited:

And these two blurbs in the BRB...so no Deep Strike listed under any Datasheets in Stronghold Assault

You’ll find a wide range of fortifications presented in Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault, and further fortification datasheets feature in other Games Workshop publications.

Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game.

I understand what you are saying but its says multiple times that buildings are models.
so its clearly an exception to the rule that all models have unit type.


"it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
"the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
.... and so on

Are you really saying that buildings aren't models it could not be more clear.

Sunhero wrote:
I understand what you are saying but its says multiple times that buildings are models.
so its clearly an exception to the rule that all models have unit type.


"it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
"the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
.... and so on

Are you really saying that buildings aren't models it could not be more clear.

Coming into this fresh...I see it like this after looking at the BRB subjectively.

1. We play a game with Models, because literally that's what they are. (GW sells models so thats how they refer to them as, not Bobbies Plastice Space Man with a Bolter)
2. The BRB talks about unit types which are made up of individual models.
3. Rules differentiate between targeting/effecting the individuals Models or the entire Unit
4. Terrain gets benefits from some aspects of rules. (I put in Aspect, as that is what the BRB uses for a word).
5. Nowhere under Unit types does it talk about Fortifications, but I quoted above where the BRB says you get their individual rules at.
6. They are all talked about a Terrain Type, not model or unit types. So how can it be twisted in anyway to Deep Strike a piece of terrain? Maybe a meteor lol...

I think everyone needs to look past the fact that you buy a model to play this game...so yes literally everything is a model. Look at if it has a Unit type, Terrain Type, or something else.

@jinxdrgon I can tell you have a good understanding of the rules can you look through this run through tell me whats wrong with it.

wwp "If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserve."

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. p.112
"if a unit enter a building they immediately capture and claim that building"p.112

"moving into a building works the same as embarking and disembarking a vehicle" ..."all of the normal rules apply" p.110 bottom left hand pargraph
your combined unit and ic mounted in building makes it a unit because its then claimed.( this happens in reserve)
the 'combined reserve units' section brb p.135 right hand column allows the wwp carrying character to be embarked in reserve.

It then gains the deep strike rule from the wwp and the rest is history.

And again you've yet to provide a specific rule to back up your claims, just vague allusions from the use of the word 'model' which in each and every case can be attributed to either the use of the word meaning "a small copy of something such as a building, vehicle, or machine" or GWs inconsistent use of the word. You need a specific rule that comes out and says that despite not having a characteristic profile or unit type it is considered a model according to the rules and then you'll have an argument. At this point of time, you've not done so.

building are treated as separate models...." p.112
how much more specfic can you get

No, it's not specific. Being 'treated' as separate models is not specific for saying that they ARE models according to the rules.

Sunhero wrote:
building are treated as separate models...." p.112
how much more specfic can you get

What you quoted was to make it easy to tell the difference between two buildings next to each other. Like the Fortress of Redemption. Which has a datasheet with it's rules. Which has no deep strike on it...



GW calls everything models because...winner winner...they SELL models as a model company? Each model has a type to define it, like it says in the BRB. Under those types it gives more defining rules. I re-quoted below for Fortifications...

You’ll find a wide range of fortifications presented in Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault, and further fortification datasheets feature in other Games Workshop publications.

Each fortification has a fortification datasheet that describes how it is used in the game.

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112
3. "if the model has armour values"p.183

I could go on but theirs no point.

A building is a model so can go in reserve
(p.132 "Which ever method you use models must ether deploy within the deployment zone or be held in reserve.")
A claimed building is a unit in the controlling players army. p.112
your combined unit and ic mounted in building makes it a unit because its then claimed.( this happens in reserve)

It then gains the deep strike rule from the wwp and the rest is history.

I have gone through every stage in minute detail I don't think there's any thing else to say.

There is something else to say, your premise is false ergo your conclusions are false.

So what is the buildings unit type? (Because all models have a unit type).


"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" (Models and units chapter, Other Important Information section).

No unit type = not a model.

Buildings and Fortifications are covered under Terrain pretty clearly.

TERRAIN TYPES

All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.

BUILDINGS
The rules for buildings are quite extensive, and are covered in more detail in their own rules section.

Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can’t move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them.

So It's a terrain type, that can be purchased. To see it rules you go further down under Terrain, to the sub bullet Buildings. And then it tells you it utilizes some aspects of the transport rules or else things coudl not go inside them. So its a non-moving terrain piece that you can purchase or just set on the table.

Edit:

I also emailed GW and repeated most everything from this thread, even when it made no sense to do so, to try and get an answer. I'll post it if I get it.

Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112

model=model

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112

model=model

At this point I don't know if you are just trolling or not. Being entirely serious. Everyone has pointed out to you numerous times that yes you own and paint and play with models. The word in the English language describes everything we use in the game. GW also gave TYPES to it's models. Look at the type of the model for it's rules. No has been arguing with you that a building is...wait for it...a MODEL OF A BUILDING...

Look for it's type of model and the applicable entry in the BRB

"treated as separate models" what does that suggest to you?

maybe that you treat them as separate modes?

Foto69man,
All I was doing was being accurate, many of the Rules referenced in Stronghold Assault have been replaced with 'check The Rules' because a more up-dated version exists within 7th Edition.

Sunhero,
You keep completely ignoring that the Rules also tell us that Models will have a Unit Type...
There is also a debate surrounding if the Building has a true Profile, or just a bunch of count as Rules which interact as if they where a profile.

Given that we are talking about a whole bunch of count as Rules, we have to look at the context created by all these Rule interactions to really understand any one single piece of the puzzle. The only way that the Rules would be interacting with the Building to begin with is through some other 'count as' Rules. Be it permission to count it as a vehicle for a Special Rule, or a Shooting attack, the only time a Rule interacts with the building is when we have been told the Rule has permission to interact with the Building. This would mean we would already be in a situation where the Building as treated as if it was a model for Rule purposes before this one even becomes part of the equation.

There is something interesting about 'treat as' or 'count as' Rules that a lot of people constantly overlook:
They exist in order to grant X access to Y, because X is not Y.

Therefore any Rule stating to treat or count the building as a Model is further evidence that a Building is not a Model....

Sunhero wrote:
"treated as separate models" what does that suggest to you?

maybe that you treat them as separate modes?

I just start laughing when I see your replies now. Unless you glue your entire army to each other, they are all separate models.

Please start reading things, like the BRB in general. It already breaks it down for you that Building are a terrain type. It also does not have any datasheets for the fortifications in there...because GW wants you to buy the Stronghold Assault book. So say you do that. Really cool thing they do...on the datasheets, it echoes exactly what the BRB says, and calls them all Terrain. So back to my original joke way back...the only piece of terrain you are deep striking is a meteor when you:

forge the narrative

Edit:

I was with you Jinx, just was confused as the only place the Datasheets for terrain...I mean Fortifications are at is in Stronghold.

@jinxdragon (You keep completely ignoring that the Rules also tell us that Models will have a Unit Type.... )

even when a building is a unit it does not have a unit type

I think its just a general rule that comes into conflict with a specific rule happens all the time.

Sunhero wrote:
Building is a model quotes just a few
1."it will be clearly stated on the models data sheet."p112
2."the building that make up a multi-part building are treated as separate models...." p.112

model=model

And again, until you can find a direct quote from the rulebook that says despite not having a characteristic profile and a unit type battlefield terrain is a 'model' as defined by the rules all you have is a bunch of vague statements that could be implied in a number of ways, most of which don't support your arguments.

So, please provide a rule that specifically and explicitly says battlefield terrain without having a characteristic profile or unit type. That means it MUST say that it is a model without those two prerequisites and doesn't just call it a 'model' in reference to a different rule or situation.

Sunhero wrote:
@jinxdragon (You keep completely ignoring that the Rules also tell us that Models will have a Unit Type.... )

even when a building is a unit it does not have a unit type

I think its just a general rule that comes into conflict with a specific rule happens all the time.

I am going to post this again...and PM it directly to you so you cannot ignore what the BRB says about Buildings...



Buildings and Fortifications are covered under Terrain pretty clearly.

TERRAIN TYPES

All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.

BUILDINGS
The rules for buildings are quite extensive, and are covered in more detail in their own rules section.

Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can’t move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them.

So It's a terrain type, that can be purchased. To see it rules you go further down under Terrain, to the sub bullet Buildings. And then it tells you it utilizes some aspects of the transport rules or else things coudl not go inside them. So its a non-moving terrain piece that you can purchase or just set on the table.

Sunhero,
There are instructions in the book on how to resolve true conflicts between the Rules, covering situations where Rule 1 states to do X while doing X will make it impossible to Resolve Rule 2. These instructions can be found in the General Principal section of the book, with all the other meta-Rules which define the Game itself, under the title of 'Basic Vs Advanced.' I, personally, do not like this part of the book because it does not contain enough details or create enough of a 'hierarchic' to function in all situations. However, this is the actual Written Rules for Resolving such conflicts within the game and that leads me to one simple question.

Where are you getting permission to "trump" a Core Rule / General Principal?

@jinxyep thats the section i dont really see a probmlem

@foto69man find another thread dude your posts meander from one irrelevant point to the next jinx and Ghaz are making points and you just seam to be writing random sentences.

I'm about 100% sure that all my quotes are from the BRB so they hit your topic and clarify your topic every single time so are not irrelevant. I keep pointing out that the BRB defines buildings as terrain. So they cannot be affected by the WWP. Do you just not like the answer or would it be better for me to show page numbers directly from the BRB?

Actually let me ask this, how are you taking the special rule for an HQ model that affects him and a Unit he joins, and that can also apply to a Transport they are embarked in, to a piece of Terrain (Purchased or Neutral)?

I do see a problem:
No permission exists to Resolved a Terrain Rule when it causes a violation with a Core Rule.

I believe it would be very dangerous for any Core Rule or General Principal to be "Trumped" by an Advanced or Basic Rule, even one from the Codex itself. This is because the Basic Rules and General Principals cover how the Players interact with the Rules, how the Rules interact with other Rules and how the whole thing is held together on a wish and a prayer. If it was possible for any Rule to conflict with, and trump, a Core Rule it would be possible for us to change how these Rule interactions are working. It is already proven, from the vast different interpretations on what the Written Rules mean, that there is a great difference in how people view fundamental Rule interaction to begin with.

Throw in the concept that the Core Rules can be trumped and this game becomes even more unplayable then it already is, Rule as Written wise....

@jinx its good point and its what normally happens in these kind of discussions the rules are to some degree self contradictory.
so you ether have a process to solve the problem be it specific/general, chronological RAI or you just roll for it.

I do under stand that the say that all models have stat line unit type ..

but you can see that they outright call a building a model and ask for you to treat it as such right? I'm not going crazy.
To me that seams to be a fairly clear case of specific over general?

the only issue i see here, is how does the building deep strike?

if a building cannot move as explicitly stated on page 110, how do they move at combat speed via deep strike? the building can't move in the first place.

deep strike counts as having moved in the movement phase so that is odd.

i guess we could look at what gauss pylon says when it comes to deep striking - does immobile type allow you to deep strike?

but is a building consider immobile type

@whaked It has rules in deep strike section for immobile units
they still count as having moved at combat speed.

Sunhero,
How many times do I need to point out the obvious:
The Rules do tell us to treat Buildings as Models in certain situations because Buildings are not Models by default.
There would be no need to inform us to treat a X as X, if X was already X....

As Buildings are not Models by default, the Authors would be required to provide us with specific instructions related to when and how we go about resolving Model-specific Rules in situations involving Buildings. The fact the Authors took the time to pen pages of such Rules to cover virtually every single situation is the largest amount of evidence against the concept of 'Buildings Are Models' which no one wants to ever address for me. It is also what makes the Claimed Building Rule very vital to Buildings... it is one of the few Rules which simply states 'they are' instead of 'count as.'

The Rule you are quoting tells us to treat them as Separate Models:
When do we Treat them as such?

So when they directly refer to a building as a model?

I can see this is going nowhere I have nothing more to add than my amended original post but your counter arguments defiantly ironed that out,
to the point where the only argument against is whether or not a building is a model.

I believe that when they directly refer to a building as a model in the context of rules that means its a model.
where as you believe the general section models over rules that.