DA Wargear "Power Field Generator" & Imperial Bastion

[AyanamiKun]

This came up in a game some days ago: If a Dark Angels HQ equipped with a Power Field Generator stands next to or on top of an Imperial Bastion, does the Bastion also gain the benefits of the Power Field Generator (4+ Invul Save in 3" around the HQ).

 

The rule text states "and all models (friendly and enemy) within 3" of a model with a power field generator". The bastion is neither enemy nor friend, but the rule also states "all models" so the part about friend and enemy could just be a clarification that also enemies would benefit from this. I was unable (or too stupid) to find a clear definition of what a model is in the rulebook.

 

Does the bastion now get the 4+ invul save or not? :\

 

Thanks in advance!

[Gentlemanloser]

PFG has recently been FAQed.

 

Edit: There's also an arguement to be made that a Bastion isn't a 'model'.

[AyanamiKun]

PFG has recently been FAQed.

Yes, in regard to transport vehicles. This only changes the behaviour of a Power Field Generator inside a transport vehicle. Buildings use transport vehicle rules but they are not defined as being transport vehicles ;) I also am most interested in the case of the PFG being next to the bastion or on top of it :)

 

Or is there some FAQ entry I missed? 

[Gentlemanloser]

Being on the batlements of a bastion, you're still embarked.

 

Page 95

 

a unit can embark to either the interior or the battlements

 

 

the embarking unit can only embark directly to the battlements

 

(I found a quote there that really should answer the now locked TH question.  Going to post it here as well as it's relevant)

 

Page 95, Battlements

 

a different unit can be 'on top'of it (and so do not need to be taken off the board).

[dswanick]

This came up in a game some days ago: If a Dark Angels HQ equipped with a Power Field Generator stands next to or on top of an Imperial Bastion, does the Bastion also gain the benefits of the Power Field Generator (4+ Invul Save in 3" around the HQ).

 

The rule text states "and all models (friendly and enemy) within 3" of a model with a power field generator". The bastion is neither enemy nor friend, but the rule also states "all models" so the part about friend and enemy could just be a clarification that also enemies would benefit from this. I was unable (or too stupid) to find a clear definition of what a model is in the rulebook.

 

Does the bastion now get the 4+ invul save or not? :\

 

Thanks in advance!

Not.  A Bastion is not a "Model", as defined by pgs.2-3 of the BRB.  It is a piece of Terrain, so it would no more get the Inv. Save than would a piece of Difficult Terrain that the PFG-equipped model happened to be standing in.

[HJL]

Where on those pages does it say that a Bastion is not a model? ive read through it and cant find any reference to what is and what is not a model at all. 

 

I would say that unless it states that a Bastion is not a model that the power field generator works on it fine.

 

The only referene i can find at all is pg116

 

"Access points & Fire points: As per model" <---it states right there that it is a model

[dswanick]

Where on those pages does it say that a Bastion is not a model? ive read through it and cant find any reference to what is and what is not a model at all. 

 

I would say that unless it states that a Bastion is not a model that the power field generator works on it fine.

Nope, doesn't work that way.  I don't have to prove a negative, the burden of proof is on you.

 

Pgs.2-3 of the BRB defines what a "model" is.  Pgs.90-107 define "pieces of terrain".  Find in those definitions where GW defines "terrain" as "models".  I'd be genuinely interested if you can find such a definition, because it would be relevant to another discussion currently in the +OR+ - http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/277574-aegis-defense-line-emplacements-deny-the-witch/.

[HJL]

As i stated above.

 

[The only reference i can find at all is pg116: "Access points & Fire points: As per model" <---it states right there that it is a model]

[dswanick]

As i stated above.

 

[The only reference i can find at all is pg116: "Access points & Fire points: As per model" <---it states right there that it is a model]

And a Gun Emplacement is referred to as a model : "The type of weapon on the gun emplacement depends on the model that you're using to represent it".

Then it goes on to give it a statline of WS-/BS-/S-/T7/W2/I-A-/Ld-/Sv3+.  And as we know from Pg.3, a stat of '-' is equal to a stat of '0'.  Further, "If at any point, a model's Strength, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.".  So, do you remove your Quadgun/Icarus Lascannon from play as a casualty as soon as the first player turn begins?  Because if it's a model (as you claim), then you must (per BRB RAW, Pg.2).

[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.

[Gentlemanloser]

If an Imperial Bastion is a model, can I place it in a peice of Area Terrain for a 5+ Cover Save?

[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.

Perhaps you should actually read your rulebook before continuing to comment on RAW.  Pgs.2-3 are explicit in this regard, and you are sadly wrong.

[HJL]

ok, quote me the text. as i am reading it, you are sadly wrong.

 

reduced: to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/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

[Gentlemanloser]

The rules does say if the statistic is reduced to zero.

 

Which would imply that it would have to be reduced from a higher value.

 

The rule should actually say "if any any point the statistic equals zero".

[AyanamiKun]

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... :(

[dswanick]

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.

[AyanamiKun]

dswanick, I agree with you completely :)

 

Sorry about mixing up characteristics. Shame on me!

 

Basically leaves one thing open for discussion (at least a bit):

Buildings are not transport vehicles, they just use aspects of the rules (pg. 92). The DA FAQ clearly states "If the bearer is embarked upon a Transport vehicle, the power field's effects only apply to models embarked upon that vehicle.", and a building cannot be a transport vehicle. If it were one, it would have to be classified as a model with all the problems depicted above. So while a building itself would not benefit from a PFG, would the PFG field be projected 3" around the building? Or 3" around the bearer of he is embarked on battlements?

 

RAI is most probably that buildings work the same for the PFG as transport vehicles, but what is RAW in this case?

[Gentlemanloser]

Counts-as again.

 

Buildings 'count as' a Transport Vehicle for the purpose of how they work with units wishing to occupy them.

 

With any additional Building related rules.  Such as being able to assault units embarked (and off the board) if they are in an adjacent building.

 

How the PFG works while embarked in a transport works the same whether it is a transport vehicle, or an occupy able building.

[Leonaides]

Last time I checked (been a while tho) - genestealers had BS 0... Does that now mean they die the moment the arrive on the board?

[Gentlemanloser]

No, because the rules don't tell us that BS0 equals casualty.

 

BS0 means they can't shoot, ever.

 

That's in the same section as the rules quoted above. ;)

[AyanamiKun]

Counts-as again.

 

Buildings 'count as' a Transport Vehicle for the purpose of how they work with units wishing to occupy them.

 

With any additional Building related rules.  Such as being able to assault units embarked (and off the board) if they are in an adjacent building.

 

How the PFG works while embarked in a transport works the same whether it is a transport vehicle, or an occupy able building.

 

I think it should be like this, yes. But were does it say that clearly? I couldn't find it ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

Page 92;

 

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, and units from either side can go inside. To make use of these rules effectively, you'll have to agree the building's Transport Capacity and Armour Values.

 

Buildngs count as vehicles that can't move and the other side can embark on them.

[Raeven]

So we are agreed with HJL's premise, if a model has it's S T or W is reduced to 0 it is removed.  That models without those characteristics can never have those characteristics reduced?

[AyanamiKun]

Page 92;

 

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, and units from either side can go inside. To make use of these rules effectively, you'll have to agree the building's Transport Capacity and Armour Values.

 

Buildngs count as vehicles that can't move and the other side can embark on them.

 

"use aspects of" and "main difference between" is not a "counts as" for me. But let's say buildings count as transport vehicles which cannot move and both sides can embark on, then they are models because they count as something which is defined as a model. Then all problems stated by dswanick would come into play. If they should count as transport vehicles that would be written there clearly (at least I would expect that) :)

[dswanick]

So we are agreed with HJL's premise, if a model has it's S T or W is reduced to 0 it is removed.  That models without those characteristics can never have those characteristics reduced?

No, but my response and counter to his claim is posted in the other, parallel thread :

 

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.