Aegis Defense Line Emplacements-Deny the Witch?

[Gentlemanloser]

Zing!

 

Edit: Gun emplacements.

 

Not units, not models, not Artillery.

 

Stupidly designed, or incompetent oversight?

[Raeven]

Even if it is a unit and a model, it is never an "enemy" because any unit that is in base to base contact with it can use it.

[Gentlemanloser]

Doesn't need to be an enemy for Warp Rift.  Only a non-vehicle model, in the target unit.

[jeffersonian000]

Doesn't need to be an enemy for Warp Rift. Only a non-vehicle model, in the target unit.

To which a Gun Emplacement definitely is a non-vehicle model with a characteristic profile.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

If it's a model, then you remove it from play instantly, as it has a zero Strengh characteristic.

 

As per the quote by DS above.

 

It's still not a 'unit'.  And if it is, I'll go to ground behind it's Aegis defense line for a 2+ Cover Save.

[dswanick]

 

Doesn't need to be an enemy for Warp Rift. Only a non-vehicle model, in the target unit.

To which a Gun Emplacement definitely is a non-vehicle model with a characteristic profile.

 

SJ

Yeah, with a S characteristic of - (ie 0).  Which means "remove it from play as a casualty as soon as the first player turn begins"...

[Gentlemanloser]

Every phase of the game, the rules break down on fundamental aspects.

 

5th and 4th were *never* this bad.  There might have been ambiguities that we discussed, sometimes Ad nauseam.

 

But never fundamental disjunctions.

 

And some folk claim that 6th is the tightest ruleset GW have produced.  It's laughable.

 

Edit: But don't worry!  Golden rule!  Forge that narative!!!

[dswanick]

Every phase of the game, the rules break down on fundamental aspects.

 

5th and 4th were *never* this bad.  There might have been ambiguities that we discussed, sometimes Ad nauseam.

 

But never fundamental disjunctions.

 

And some folk claim that 6th is the tightest ruleset GW have produced.  It's laughable.

Not the tightest, just the most fun for friends (who can agree on common-sense interpretations of the rules).  It's definitely better than 2nd Ed was, but with the open-architecture feel of 2nd.  6th Ed has been the most fun I've had playing WH40K since those "good ol' days".

[Gentlemanloser]

I still miss RT. Force Rods with Psi Points and Temporal Disjunction.

 

/nostalgia

[HJL]

no, you cannot reduce the s,t or w to 0 of something that does not have s,t or w. In order to reduce something it must be reduced from something else. 

 

more clearly : you cannot reduce something to zero that does not first exist. If it is already 0 then you are not reducing it to 0 at all.

[dswanick]

 

no, you cannot reduce the s,t or w to 0 of something that does not have s,t or w. In order to reduce something it must be reduced from something else. 

 

more clearly : you cannot reduce something to zero that does not first exist. If it is already 0 then you are not reducing it to 0 at all.

So zero isn't zero?  OK, I'm done with you. :lol:

[HJL]

reduced: to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/reduce

 

"If at any point, a model's Strength, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty."

 

so we agree that in order for something to be a reduction it must have diminished in size, amount, extent or number. What number is 0 reduced by in order to become 0? the answer is 0. 0 is not a reduction therefore the "reduced to 0" clause does not come into effect

[dswanick]

reduced: to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/reduce

"If at any point, a model's Strength, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty."

so we agree that in order for something to be a reduction it must have diminished in size, amount, extent or number. What number is 0 reduced by in order to become 0? the answer is 0. 0 is not a reduction therefore the "reduced to 0" clause does not come into effect

Well, how about this definition from your own link : "5 b : to put down in written or printed form" The Gun Emplacements Strength of - is being "put down in written or printed form" so a model with a "written or printed form" stat of - has that stat reduced to zero without ever having been anything else.

Then, of course, there's this definition from your above link : "to become converted or equated". So any time a stat "becomes equated" to zero it is removed as a casualty. Which is exactly what I said.

I posted this in a seperate, but related thread, but it applies equally to this discussion:

And vehicles do not have an I value (some do have it), so would I have to remove moste vehicles from play? O_o

So to me it comes down to something like this:
Bastion entry in fortification calls it "model" at least for "Access & Fire Points: As per model". But then you would have to remove it as a casualty immediately as per the "Model" definition. But wait, vehicles like buildings have their own set of characteristics. If vehicles are exempt from the Zero-Level characteristic ruling then maybe buildings are also exempt. But it never mentions that vehicles are exempt, does it? So we remove all vehicles and buildings from play as soon as they enter (except maybe Walkers and such)?


GW seems to fail to clearly state what a model is and keep to that description. Pages 2-3 only describe basic models to keep it simple and define characteristics. The term model used there does not seem to be a complete definition to me at all because everything you build for the gaming table is sometimes called a model in the book somewhere...

"If at any point, a model's Strength, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty."

Initiative is not Strength, Toughness, or Wounds.

But , you make a good point. So let's turn it around. Let's imagine that all pieces of Terrain are models.

- Per pg.3, "The models that make up up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'."

- Per pg.108, "Fortifications are purchased as part of your army."

- Therefore Fortifications are models in your army, which must be organised into units.

- Question: What "Unit Type" are Fortifications? A Gun Emplacement is not given a Type, and yet "Gun Emplacement" and "Terrain" aren't valid unit types, as described on pgs.44-49/

- Per pg.6, "Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.". So my Gun Emplacement can move each turn? Some specific unit types are given a movement of other than 6" (Jump, Bike, Beast, Cavalry, Vehicles) and some are specifically disallowed from moving (Artillery, Immobile Vehicles). Bastions and Fortress' of Redemption are counted as Immobile Vehicles, so they obviously can't move, but Gun Emplacements have no specific prohibition on moving, so I guess they can.

- Per pg.10, "A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging...". Now if a Fortification is a model in your army, then it is an enemy model to your opponent. Therefore, his model's may not move within 1" of it, unless they are charging. Not a problem for Bastions and FoRs, as the access point can be used from 2" while the models are only prohibited from moving within 1". Gun Emplacements, however, would only be usable by your opponent if he first assaulted the model, and then failed to destroy it in the ensuing CC. Only then, while being locked in combat with it would he be in base contact during your turn in order to use it against your Flyers. Hmm, I kind of like this interpretation.

- Per pg.26, "Units that lose a close combat must make a Morale check to hold their ground...If the unit fails, the abandon the fight and Fall Back."

So, if a Gun Emplacement suffers a single wound in CC it must Fall Back as it has a 'Ld-'. Further, since it has 'I-' it will automatically fail the Sweeping Advance check and be destroyed anyway.

Declaring Fortifications and Terrain as models gets pretty messy pretty quickly, huh? And all because people want to ignore the RAW definition of "model" found on pg.3* and not entertain the notion that sometimes GW mean "Model" and sometimes they just mean model. And want to confuse pieces of terrain with models.

*Such as "In addition to its characteristic profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we will discuss in more depth on pg.44"

;tldr; It's silly to try and parse GW's use of words in an overly-precise manner. Trying to latch on to the word "model" to argue that your Bastion gets a PFG Inv.Save or that your Gun Emplacment can Deny the Witch, based on the off-hand use of the common word "model" is doomed to fail and perpetuate a bad image of Warhammer Gamers that has been rightly earned.

[Squirrelloid]

Gun emplacements are identical to artillery pieces in all respects, including their stat-line!  They should be treated the same, so if you think it having an S - and being a model means it immediately dies, so do all artillery.  That's not really an acceptable outcome, but GW writes stupid rules.

 

I guarantee most of the writers were assuming '-' means 'this characteristic does not apply', not 'this characteristic is 0 with all the attendant rules that follow from that'.  'Does not apply' is what '-' is usually used to mean in tables, which the writers would likely have been familiar with.

 

So RAW, all artillery insta-dies, because GW's rules suck.  RAI almost certainly 'this attribute doesn't apply.  Auto-fail all attribute tests called for, but otherwise do not use.'

[dswanick]

Gun emplacements are identical to artillery pieces in all respects, including their stat-line!  They should be treated the same, so if you think it having an S - and being a model means it immediately dies, so do all artillery.  That's not really an acceptable outcome, but GW writes stupid rules.

And what happens to a model of unit type "Artillery" when all the Crew Models in the unit are killed?  So what happens to the Gun Emplacement at the start of the first player turn? :lol:

[Gentlemanloser]

Gun emplacements are identical to artillery pieces in all respects, including their stat-line!

Apart form being unit type: artillery.

Do we want a Gun Empalcement being able to go to ground behind it's own Aegis defense line?

Edit;

From the other Terrain thread;

They are not mentioned in the reference tables at the back and the fortification entry states "Terrain Type", not "Unit Type". For the bastion it is:

Quote

Composition: One Bastion

Terrain Type: Medium Building (Armor Value 14)

Access Points & Fire Points: As per model.

Weapons: Four emplaced heavy bolters (typically one on each facing)

Normal unit entries have "Unit Type" and "Unit Composition" as the main difference.

As a Gun Emplacement isn't a 'unit', it cannot go to ground, or be targeted by Warp Rift.

While the Gun Emplacement's Advanced rules takes precedence of the shooting/assault Basic rules, allowing it to be shot even though it's not a 'unit' to target, Warp Rift's Codex rule overrides that and requires a non-vehicle model in the target unit.

GE not a unit, WR requires a target unit. GE by RAW cannot be effected by WR.

Play it however you want to with mates.

Edit2: As it's not a 'unit' and we're told;

Per pg.3, "The models that make up up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'."

A Gun Emplacement isn't a Model (in game terms). Even though it's rules state to look at it's model. GW mean the physical representation of the bit of terrain, and not a Model in your army with that bit of text.

[Raeven]

The rules for gun emplacements give you special permission to shoot an assault the model, even though it is a terrain piece, so it doesn't matter if it is a model, enemy, or whatever else you need to normally attack it.

 

Models seems to refer only to pieces with all the characteristics listed on pg 2, as all those characteristics are listed under the Models and Units heading.  Since Vehicles have special characteristics they don't follow the same rules as a model or unit.  (pg.3)

 

Terrain and structures fall under the Battlefield terrain rules, having their own characteristics and features that are different from model & units, they do not follow the restriction of having a STR, T, or W value.

[Gentlemanloser]

From my post above;

 

 

While the Gun Emplacement's Advanced rules takes precedence of the shooting/assault Basic rules, allowing it to be shot even though it's not a 'unit' to target, Warp Rift's Codex rule overrides that and requires a non-vehicle model in the target unit.

[Squirrelloid]

Gun emplacements are identical to artillery pieces in all respects, including their stat-line! They should be treated the same, so if you think it having an S - and being a model means it immediately dies, so do all artillery. That's not really an acceptable outcome, but GW writes stupid rules.

And what happens to a model of unit type "Artillery" when all the Crew Models in the unit are killed? So what happens to the Gun Emplacement at the start of the first player turn?

I admit that there is a distinct difference insofar as the gun emplacement does not have a unit with other models, so you'd have to assume it doesn't follow all the rules for artillery.

But at the same time, you can't argue it should be removed for having S = 0 without also arguing artillery weapons should also be removed immediately because they also have S = 0. Since both list S as -, clearly either the S = 0 -> dead rule is mistaken, or more likely, the - is 0 rule is mistaken (because no one would assume that generally, and its doubtful the people responsible for the profiles intended S- to mean S0).

[Gentlemanloser]

 

or more likely, the - is 0 rule is mistaken

 

You can't really mistake the BRB telling you that '0' is also represented as '-'. ;)

 

Unless you're talking about GW getting their own rules wrong.  Which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Raeven]

None of us will actually pull this in game, so I don't understand why it is getting so much debate.

[Gentlemanloser]

Trying to claim a Deny the Witch roll versus a GK Libby dropping in with Mordrak and casting Warp Rift?

 

At least one person posting in this thread uses that tactic, I'm sure someone must have at least thought about taking a Deny roll versus it.

 

The OP was trying to find a tactic like this as well.  It's good to acknowledge the point that a Quad Gun or Icarus can't take a Deny Roll (and also can't Go To Ground for a 2+ Cover save).

[dswanick]

I admit that there is a distinct difference insofar as the gun emplacement does not have a unit with other models, so you'd have to assume it doesn't follow all the rules for artillery.

It doesn't work that way. Either two things are the same (except for those specific differences detailed by the rules) or they are not the same.

Gun emplacements are identical to artillery pieces in all respects, including their stat-line!  They should be treated the same,

In which case a Gun Emplacement with no crew members is removed as a casualty.

 

The only other possible explanation is that Gun Emplacements aren't Artillery. They also aren't any other type of Model or Unit as they break pretty much all the rules in regards to such game pieces. Gun Emplacements are pieces of Terrain. As such they can be approached by either players Models, they can not Move, they can not Go To Ground, they do not make Deny the Witch rolls, and they are immune to all the rules for Units/Models related to Morale. Consequently they are also immune to all game effects intended to affect Models but not Terrain. If Jaws/Warp Rift affected Terrain, then there would be no argument here. The argument arises because some are advocating for a game effect to remove a piece of Terrain with special rules that they find bothersome. It's no different than if someone wanted to Jaws/Warp Rift a piece of Dangerous Terrain, or claim that all of their Models within 3" of a piece of Area Terrain gain the benefits of the Power Field Generator possessed by a model within that Terrain.

[Squirrelloid]

You know dswanick, you could at least admit the argument that because it has S- it is automatically removed is flawed, because otherwise it also applies to artillery.  That was my only point, which you keep dodging.

[Raeven]

Trying to claim a Deny the Witch roll versus a GK Libby dropping in with Mordrak and casting Warp Rift?

 

At least one person posting in this thread uses that tactic, I'm sure someone must have at least thought about taking a Deny roll versus it.

 

The OP was trying to find a tactic like this as well.  It's good to acknowledge the point that a Quad Gun or Icarus can't take a Deny Roll (and also can't Go To Ground for a 2+ Cover save).

You know that I wasn't referring to the OP.

 

The debate about whether the gun/vehicle should die on contact with the board in turn one is what I meant, since it obviously needs clarification.