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.

 Jimsolo wrote:
By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

Lets not go down that road again. A fortification claimed by an army is 100% a unit. No one should be debating that point.

FlingitNow's logic is not that the fortification is not a unit and therefore cannot redeploy, but rather that it lacks a unit type. With out a unit type is does not fall into one of the two categories establish in the scout rule.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

Lets not go down that road again. A fortification claimed by an army is 100% a unit. No one should be debating that point.

FlingitNow's logic is not that the fortification is not a unit and therefore cannot redeploy, but rather that it lacks a unit type. With out a unit type is does not fall into one of the two categories establish in the scout rule.

Okay, fair enough, my bad. Not having a unit type would seem to place it in the 12" category as the most reasonable recourse.

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Out of curiosity... why is that important here?

To redeploy 6" you must have a unit type of Infantry, MC, Artillery or Walker.

To redeploy 12" must have any other unit type.

With no unit type you don't fall into either category thus have no permission to redeploy any distance. Hence why Fortifications can't scout redeploy.

But logically that doesn't following:

IF (unit type = Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 6 inches)

IF (unit type =/= Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 12 inches)

So, if unit type is null, then null is not infantry, monstrous creature, artillery, or walker, which means that as a unit with Scout, it'd be redeployed 12".

The unit type isn't "null". Unity type is a property the fortification does not possess.

Poor Bob lost both of his eyes in the war and they have been removed. Bob is at a party and the host decides to play a game. He ask every with blue eyes to stand on the left side of the room, and every one with eyes of any other color to stand on the right side of the room. Where should poor Bob stand? The absence of an eye color does not qualify Bob as a person with eyes of a color other then blue and having eyes of a color other then blue is not the same as not having blue eyes.

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're not at an impasse it simply doesn't have a unit type.

Out of curiosity... why is that important here?

To redeploy 6" you must have a unit type of Infantry, MC, Artillery or Walker.

To redeploy 12" must have any other unit type.

With no unit type you don't fall into either category thus have no permission to redeploy any distance. Hence why Fortifications can't scout redeploy.

But logically that doesn't following:

IF (unit type = Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 6 inches)

IF (unit type =/= Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Artillery, or Walker)
> > THEN (Scout redeploy = 12 inches)

So, if unit type is null, then null is not infantry, monstrous creature, artillery, or walker, which means that as a unit with Scout, it'd be redeployed 12".

Your second if statement does not correlate to the rules. The rukes require you to have a unit type that is different to Inf/MC etc. But it still requires a unit type. So null is not a valid option.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Poor Bob lost both of his eyes in the war and they have been removed. Bob is at a party and the host decides to play a game. He ask every with blue eyes to stand on the left side of the room, and every one with eyes of any other color to stand on the right side of the room. Where should poor Bob stand? The absence of an eye color does not qualify Bob as a person with eyes of a color other then blue and having eyes of a color other then blue is not the same as not having blue eyes.

Null is a term used to describe something that is non-existent. Since it's a unit without a unit type, null unit type means "no unit type". In the situation you've described, the logical choice is for Bob to go to the side where the not-blue eyes group is going. Having no eyes that are blue means he goes there.

And FlingItNow, the rules do not require you to have a unit type for this, it just states what happens if your unit type is Inf/MC/Artillery/Walkter. Since absence of a unit type means it's Not Inf/Mc/etc, then that's the group it falls in.


EDIT:

I was going to give a story example, but DJGietzen's is actually really good, and shows perfectly why not having something separates you from any group that is "quality: have something".

"Everyone with a red car goes in this line. Everyone else goes in that other line." Would mean that everyone that owns a truck, doesn't own a car, or owns a turbo-hyper-mega-slug goes in that other line.

I thought "Building" would be the unit type in question in most cases, honestly.

But that only matters when you can assign Scout to a Fortification or if it comes with it, of course.

 Yarium wrote:
Null is a term used to describe something that is non-existent. Since it's a unit without a unit type, null unit type means "no unit type". In the situation you've described, the logical choice is for Bob to go to the side where the not-blue eyes group is going. Having no eyes that are blue means he goes there.

You've missed the point. There are two groups asked to move. The 1st requires you have eyes of the color blue. The 2nd requires that you have eyes of a color other than blue. .Both are groups of people with eyes of a color. Bob is not a person of eyes with eyes of a color and therefore does not belong to either group. You've repeated the same mistake here. People with eyes of a color other than blue =/= People who do not have blue eyes. For that to be true it would require every person have an eye color. A statement that Bob proves is false.

Maybe a better example would be.... John Henry Irons, Clark Joseph Kent and Bruce Wayne are at a party. The host decides to play a little game and asks every who has a middle name that begins with A-K to stand on the left side of the room, and every one who's middle name begins with any other letter to stand on the right side of the room. This creates 3 groups.

People with middle names that begin with A-K.
People with middle names that begin with any letter that is not part of the subset A-K (since the full set of letters is known, we can also call this group "People with middle names that begin with L-Z")
People who do not have middle names. (With out a middle name you cannot be some with a middle name that begins with A-K nor can you be some one who has a middle name that begins with L-Z.)

While Clark and John belong to the 1st group, Bruce belongs to the third group. The host of the party has not given instruction to the 3rd group on where to stand.

The fortification/unit type question is the same thing. The lack of a unit type means the scout rule has not given the fortification any permission to redeploy at all.

Wouldn't the "Unit Type" be Battlefield Terrain?

The BRB and everything else I have seen that lists Fortifications you can bring and other terrain datasheets as battlefield terrain right at the top of those data sheets.

BFT works a very particular way. You deploy it at the start of the game. And then it doesn't move.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Null is a term used to describe something that is non-existent. Since it's a unit without a unit type, null unit type means "no unit type". In the situation you've described, the logical choice is for Bob to go to the side where the not-blue eyes group is going. Having no eyes that are blue means he goes there.

You've missed the point. There are two groups asked to move. The 1st requires you have eyes of the color blue. The 2nd requires that you have eyes of a color other than blue. .Both are groups of people with eyes of a color. Bob is not a person of eyes with eyes of a color and therefore does not belong to either group. You've repeated the same mistake here. People with eyes of a color other than blue =/= People who do not have blue eyes. For that to be true it would require every person have an eye color. A statement that Bob proves is false.

Maybe a better example would be.... John Henry Irons, Clark Joseph Kent and Bruce Wayne are at a party. The host decides to play a little game and asks every who has a middle name that begins with A-K to stand on the left side of the room, and every one who's middle name begins with any other letter to stand on the right side of the room. This creates 3 groups.

People with middle names that begin with A-K.
People with middle names that begin with any letter that is not part of the subset A-K (since the full set of letters is known, we can also call this group "People with middle names that begin with L-Z")
People who do not have middle names. (With out a middle name you cannot be some with a middle name that begins with A-K nor can you be some one who has a middle name that begins with L-Z.)

While Clark and John belong to the 1st group, Bruce belongs to the third group. The host of the party has not given instruction to the 3rd group on where to stand.

The fortification/unit type question is the same thing. The lack of a unit type means the scout rule has not given the fortification any permission to redeploy at all.

I see your point here (and yes, this example does make it clearer), except that this is not what's happening in the rules creates two groups - one of A, and one not-A. It specifically says "any other unit type". This means "unit type of those which were not previously mentioned", which is just 2 groups.

That's why the eye colour one is pertinent. If the host (who is a real jerk by the way, what with Bob there and all) asks everyone with blue eyes to go to one side, and everyone else to go to the other side, then it's clear that Bob goes to the other side. Now, I see what you're saying "but they need eyes to begin with, since he asks people with eyes, and whose eyes are any other colour", but that would be a calling out that having eyes is important.

As a Building, it still has a unit type, just that the returned result is "null" or "error" or "no response".

Let's say Bob's being a jerk. He knows he doesn't have any eyes, but has covered them up for the whole party. When asked this question, someone just says "well, are the blue or not?", he'd say, "well, they're not blue", and goes in the other group.


NOTE: Since Buildings say they use the same rules as Transports, that makes a Building a Transport. The vehicles are "Vehicle - Transport", so Buildings are, by definition "Building - Transport". As such, I'd argue that the unit type is Transport - which is "not Infantry/Walker/etc."

Neither battle field terrain nor building are unit types. It's like saying Ford made cars scout 6" all other makes of car scout 12". Then you claiming your Motor Cycle can scout 12" because it's car make is Kawasaki...

I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

bluestang10 wrote:
I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

using aspects of the rules for transports does not make buildings unit type transports. Having the words "unit type: vehicle" and transport capacity makes something unit type: vehicle transport.

MCs use aspects of the infantry rules, but are not infantry and I cannot embark a bloodthirster in a rhino.

buildings use aspects of the transport rules, but are not transports or vehicles for that matter.

bluestang10 wrote:
I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

Cool they use aspects of the transport rules does it say it counts as having unit type Vehicle with a transport capacity?

bluestang10 wrote:
I think you are missing what I QUOTED from the BrB. Let me quote again:

Buildings of all TYPES use the aspects of the Transport vehicle rules!!!!

This means that the building is a unit type of TRANSPORT, and is therefore able to be given scout and falls in the OTHER unit type. Therefore you can scout it 12".

I dont understand how this is still in question. Are you just not wanting someone to use it against you or what? Every piece of your army has a unit type. Now if ITC or LGS wants to ban scouting buildings then they can, but RAW seems to point to that is completely acceptable.

You are miss quoting.

It's not "Use the aspects"

It's "Use aspects of"

The thing you wrote says buildings are transports. The thing the book actually says is that they have some features of transports. Like the ability for units to embark/disembark from them and a capacity for how many models fit. What they do not have is the ability to move full out, or tank shock.

And then if you continue reading the rules, they tell you which aspects of Transport vehicle rules that they use. It doesn't give them the Unit Type.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool they use aspects of the transport rules does it say it counts as having unit type Vehicle with a transport capacity?

Actually, buildings do have a transport capacity. Being a Transport also doesn't mean you're a vehicle (see: Tyranid Tyrannocyte). It is also a unit in your army. This means that, by using "treated as Vehicle that can't do these things..." rules, and giving it the sub-type Transport since it uses aspects of the transport rules (most notably - Transport Capacity), we end up with "Building - Transport". It is a unit in your army, so the Terrain Type: Building just means that it's terrain type is that it's also a unit.

It's true. There are 3 Nid units with transport capacity. Harridan, Tyrannocyte, and the Heirophant. None of them are vehicles.

Where did I say buildings didn't have a transport capacity or that only vehicles have a transport capacity?

no one said transports are always vehicles.

It was pointed out that you are not a transport vehicle unless you have the unit type: vehicle and a transport capacity. The -and- ties the two together and means you have to have both.

not just the transport capacity.

You are miss quoting.

It's not "Use the aspects"

It's "Use aspects of"

The thing you wrote says buildings are transports. The thing the book actually says is that they have some features of transports. Like the ability for units to embark/disembark from them and a capacity for how many models fit. What they do not have is the ability to move full out, or tank shock.

And again, keep reading the rules and they tell you what aspects they use. It never says that they use ALL of the aspects.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
By that logic, do you restrict them from shooting as well? Since you must select a unit from you force to shoot before selecting a target. If they aren't units, (as you claim) can they not shoot?

Lets not go down that road again. A fortification claimed by an army is 100% a unit. No one should be debating that point.

FlingitNow's logic is not that the fortification is not a unit and therefore cannot redeploy, but rather that it lacks a unit type. With out a unit type is does not fall into one of the two categories establish in the scout rule.

Okay, fair enough, my bad. Not having a unit type would seem to place it in the 12" category as the most reasonable recourse.

I'm sorry? You call that reasonable? Do you seriously believe that this is intent of the scout redeployment? Thst it is reasonable to think that a building is a better scout than an actual scout?

In any case I believe FlingitNow got it right, and if someone tried that against me I would simply forfeit the game and find another opponent.

Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Lance845 wrote:
Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Because you deploy it just like any other unit in your army, because you could give it scout with a warlord trait ( which is different from the OP opponent who put scout units in it and said it could scout, which is not possible). However the discussion was about whether or not scout would apply based on building not having a unit type. In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type. So I know what the majority will say...SEE.

I do see your point that it does not say unit type, however I can see were there is a gap. And no buildings cannot move during the game, but you can move it as many times as you want during deployment before the game starts, so I still think you would be able to give scout to a fortification. I do not plan on ever doing this as an fyi, I have been trying to see it from someone elses mind and I can see how people would think it was legal.

bluestang10 wrote:
In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type.

No. Stronghold Assault doesn't just say 'type'. It is quite specific in its use of the term 'Terrain Type' in the datasheets. 'Terrain Type' does not equal 'Unit Type'.

bluestang10 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Because you deploy it just like any other unit in your army,

No you don't. You deploy fortifications when you set up normal terain and before anyone places units. It's part of the step where you and your opponent take turns placing terrain pieces. If it wasn't you could just place the terrain pieces in such a way that the person who paid for a large building would have nowhere to actually put it.

In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type. So I know what the majority will say...SEE.

I do see your point that it does not say unit type, however I can see were there is a gap. And no buildings cannot move during the game, but you can move it as many times as you want during deployment before the game starts, so I still think you would be able to give scout to a fortification. I do not plan on ever doing this as an fyi, I have been trying to see it from someone elses mind and I can see how people would think it was legal.

Again, it does not deploy like a normal unit, so the normal deployment rules don't apply.

Lance845 wrote:

bluestang10 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Buildings and fortifications are battlefield terrain. Nothing in the game allows any piece of BFT to move. Maybe be REMOVED. Maybe have pieces ADDED when stuff blows up. But nothing gets to move.

Why would it be more reasonable that a building can move as fast as a speeding jet bike or dudes with jet packs instead of... say... being built into the ground and not being able to move at all?

Nothing in the rules for buildings say they get to move in any way. And the rules for deploying them follow all the same rules as placing other terrain like ruins, difficult terrain, dangerous terrain. You do not need to be expressly told a laundry list of all the things something cannot do.

Because you deploy it just like any other unit in your army,

No you don't. You deploy fortifications when you set up normal terain and before anyone places units. It's part of the step where you and your opponent take turns placing terrain pieces. If it wasn't you could just place the terrain pieces in such a way that the person who paid for a large building would have nowhere to actually put it.

In Stronghold Assult (i just got home lol so i could actually look at it) on the back data sheet all items are listed are fortifications, and then they each have a type ie small building, med, large, battlefield terrain, unusual, impassable. Now I know looking in my codex, it does say unit type, and in stronghold it just says type. So I know what the majority will say...SEE.

I do see your point that it does not say unit type, however I can see were there is a gap. And no buildings cannot move during the game, but you can move it as many times as you want during deployment before the game starts, so I still think you would be able to give scout to a fortification. I do not plan on ever doing this as an fyi, I have been trying to see it from someone elses mind and I can see how people would think it was legal.

Again, it does not deploy like a normal unit, so the normal deployment rules don't apply.

You are wrong (sorry to say it like that) but on page 130 of the BrB under fortification- fortifications can be included in a player's army or used as neutral secenery controlled by neither side. If a fortification is taken as part of an army then it is set up with the rest of the units in the army using the same deployment rules as other models.

So I should be able to set it up anywere I want during my deployment, and treat it like all other units.

A vehicle is a unit type, they just have thier own section, so if you follow that you should come to the conclusion that a building/fortification that is following aspects of vehicles and is beging deployed as a unit in your army to give you a defensive advantage (because thats why you take them) should be able to scout (givent that ability). And since when is that news that it can zoom around as fast as a jetbike, you can give scout to a freaking titan and scout move him 12" so why is so hard to think that you can scout a defensive fortification that you are deploying with your army? I mean i know probably was not RAI for you to be able to scout a fortification, but given everything that is the book, it sure does apear that you can.

I just read all that.

I am now like Bob - I have no eyes... or a head. As it just exploded.

bluestang10 wrote:
A vehicle is a unit type, they just have thier own section, so if you follow that you should come to the conclusion that a building/fortification that is following aspects of vehicles and is beging deployed as a unit in your army to give you a defensive advantage (because thats why you take them) should be able to scout (givent that ability).

For the third time, the rules for buildings tell you what aspects of vehicles apply to them. It doesn't give you carte blanche to treat them as vehicles for any and all purposes. You only use the characteristics of vehicles that the rules direct you to use.

Lance845 fortifications are deployed with your army as normal now. It changed from 6th which deployed as you've stated.

Bluestang10 it says Terrain Type as I stated all along, not unit type and just type. I think we're done here now?